Ait 


pete tistiatretts bert sieart: 54 Abate 
Sittin i i 
stitute itil 
Tests tilieis Y # ch 
; 
. $ rit} sStseiey 
(3 


= " ot = i - 

Sere se see = = = = 
ily he ; Ses preeerere 
See te esti ee as 
: 1 ‘ het Scrat ee ee ase hinoe we eet (Siecieelng 
ies gy Meas recep pe oiaorgere renee ate wStoss 

; Sees es 
= oi Sere necteet npr po omcoemans = 


a 
oat 
= z: aces 
tacoslonreronaloee = 3 
TSS = 
+ Sg mama 
——— 
SS = 
———- 
to =— 
Serene 
—— 
pooocne a 
Se = ————— 
——- 3 —————— 
——— 
eee 2 
: = — 
= : = ———— 
= oe 
os ese — 
—— a et noone ene <== 
SSS SS 2 == 
: Se ss ——— 
aes a: + Tigatemmeneee ——T 
—— a : pike agrees res : 
=~ = = i Sete ———— 
ie — a enema + ——————— 
Seaeaey = ae Soares = 
——— - a chenerem—nage = 
ae - = 
=: So ors : 
os See = 
<< ann ee eon eneneneeeneeey 
ce ng eee a pepe 


ar ee ernen me neem neal 
2 ae oo 
Sees ———— 
7 = ——————— = 


oe 


il 


i 
i 





‘. 
= ? 
= 
ie ~ 
on 
Es = 
erm ey st bc 
7 SS. 
= = ae 
=a "sei 
2 ae a 
me Senter r] 
Sa seagaeg Seti of 
aie ES Saas ae 
is ae a ee ree Ter 
; fons aioe = 
eee, a arr ee 
z 7 
- == ree ate 5 
Sie pi oe Sy Ses = 
= eneshg, 4 ae epee = 
settelertes - d 
paccieeates ‘ a x 
= ix pees = 
+ ae nes —<— 
~ way oie berets _ ” = aa! ” 
oo 3 ay page oe ed 
ee econ sy eee 2 
Eats — Se 
Samet = = Pe 
= =~ eo aera op eer 
= ‘ Pee 
~ * — " 
> =: aS ws 
Ses “y = SES = 
= ae" = ee 
=. —_ ~ = 
= ~~ 
=o 
—' ——— = 5 
ae, 
Se = Sry 
a, Tig S -- 
~ — 4 
~ -. <A ees Sessions w = 
— ss Se — 


Ve 7 
it j Hi 
iH ; 
Hit 
Wiiters 
' 


_) 
~ 


of the Theologicys s,, , 


x 


PRINCETON, N. Af 


Presented by res ; Mr. Deacvcorond’n 
c/ 


Dc * Py fs 
Wa ot / / 
Division oe See Se) Ca ey 


Section .A...ee 


ae 


ty Q 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
_ in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/commentaryonepis1854stua 











a vg: Prot. dl Pe 
oa : 
jh Oe ea ae By MS ae 
F ie ou 
ag La 
Maye : 
air ’ % i 


ee ak ee 


oe 
Ka ae. 
# 2 Os 
ear 


ry, 
Rtas ‘ is 


eb Ney ies \ 
tO Re Rigid a> aM ER I 4 


~ 





COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


B 


MOSES STUART, 


Late Prof. of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andover. 


HIRD EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. 


AN DOVE R: 
PUBLISHED BY WARREN F. DRAPER. 
1 


(@ 0) 


54. 





o* 






___ Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by oe 
MOSES STUART, - 


‘ 4 
rh ee 4 





in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


: ‘ @ , ; le Shit 
PRAT Wo it ; Rk 





ADVERTISEMENT. 


WuateEVER fears may have been entertained respecting the appli- 
cation of the principles of criticism to the Sacred Text, and whatever 
doubts may have led some to decry the cultivation of that species of 
knowledge which has for its object the grammatical and philological 
interpretation of that text, it is now almost universally admitted, 
that such operations are indispensable to the attainment of a solid 
and satisfactory acquaintance with its contents. The peculiar 
exigencies of the times call for a more than ordinary attention to such 
subjects, and a richer stock of materials specially adapted to facili- 
tate their study. For, with all the progress which has been made 
in matters of general Biblical research, and all the diligence which 
has been applied to the exposition of the Scriptures, the want of 
strictly philological and exegetical commentary has been severely 
felt, both by divines and theological students, and by a very con- 
siderable portion of intelligent and well-educated Christians, whose 
habits of reading bring them into constant contact with difficulties 
which only such commentary can remove. 


To engage in labours of this description, few were better qualified 
than Professor Stuart. Intimately acquainted with the minutie of 
Hebrew and Greek Grammar; familiar with the diversities which 
characterize the style of the Sacred Writers ; trained by long study 
of the laws of Biblical exegesis tu a matured and refined tact in 
seizing the point, the bearing, the various shades and ramifications 
of meaning which are couched under the sacred phraseology ; 
versed in the theological learning of Germany; imbued with a sin- 
cere love of Divine truth, and a profound reverence for its dictates ; 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


and, withal, endowed with a manly and richly cultivated intellect— 
his talents and acquirements peculiarly fitted him for translating 
and commenting upon the Epistle to the Hebrews :—a task replete 
with difficulties, but which he has here performed with so much 
credit to himself, and so much advantage to the church of God. 


The ordeal to which this important portion of Scripture has been’ 
subjected by the wild and extravagant hypotheses of some of the 
master-spirits of Germany, rendered it a matter of imperious neces- 
sity that it should be submitted to a fresh and full investigation. 
This, the perusal of the introductory part of the volume will prove 
that the author has successfully done. Questions respecting style, 
authorship, and interpretation, which men of such celebrity as Eich- 
horn, Bertholdt, De Wette, and others, were considered to have 
completely set at rest, have received the most patient and rigid 
consideration; and, in most instances triumphantly, in all more 
or less satisfactorily, the very reverse of their conclusions has been 
shewn to be in accordance with the real facts of the case. 


The very favourable reception which the former edition of the 
work has met with in this country, and the continued and increasing 
demand which there has been for copies since it was exhausted, 
have induced the present publishers to bring out a new and correct 
impression. May the Divine blessing accompany its more extended 
circulation, that a more general taste for the close and accurate 
study of the Sacred Qracles may be created, and a more intimate 
acquaintance with this important Epistle promoted ! 


E. HENDERSON. 


Lonpon, September 24, 1838. 


PREFACE. 


THE origin of the following work must be ascribed to the duties 
which my present occupation calls upon me to perform. As the 
time spent in the study of the Scriptures, at this seminary, has not 
allowed me to lecture upon all the Epistles of Paul, it has been my 
custom to select those which appeared to be the most difficult, and, 
in some respects, the most instructive and important. These are, the 
epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews. In respect to the latter 
epistle, many serious exegetical difficulties occur, to remove which 
much time and extensive study are necessary. But the greatest 
difficulty of all arises from the fact, that this epistle is anonymous, 
and that the Pauline origin of it has been more or less doubted or 
disputed, ever since the latter part of the second century, if not still 
earlier. This subject I have deemed to be very interesting and 
important; and I have endeavoured, while discharging my duty of 
lecturing upon the epistle, to throw what light I could upon the 
dark places of its literature. 

Experience, however, has taught me, that lectures could com 
municate to students but a very limited and incompetent view ot 
the disputed ground, in regard to the origin of the epistle to the 
Hebrews. The exceedingly numerous quotations, and appeals to 

b 


vi PREFACE, 


writers ancient and modern, which it was necessary to make, and 
the almost endless references to the Scriptures, which, apposite 
illustration and argument required,. rendered it impossible that a 
mere lecturer should communicate, or his hearer acquire and retain, 
any thing like an adequate view of the whole subject. 

What was true of the literary introduction to the epistle, was also 
found to be true in respect to many of the most important exegetical 
difficulties connected with the interpretation of it. The young 
student, by the mere repetition or delivery of any lecture upon 
them, (however particular or plain it might be in the view of an 
experienced interpreter,) was not able to acquire such a knowledge 
as would ayail thoroughly to free him from his embarrassments, or 
to render him capable of explaining such matters to others. 

The knowledge of these facts, resulting from repeated experience, 
first led me to the design of publishing, in extenso, on the epistle to 
the Hebrews. The repeated solicitations which have been made, 
that I would engage in this undertaking, might, perhaps, constitute 
some apology for embarking in it, if such an apology were necessary. 
But the time has come, when, in our country, no apology is neces- 
sary for an effort to promote the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, 
or to cast any light upon them. There is an apprehension, at pre- 
sent, somewhat extensive and continually increasing, that no age, 
nor any body of men pertaining to it, have done all which the human 
faculties, with the blessing of God, are capable of accomplishing. 
Christians, in this country, are coming more and more to believe, 
that as the church advances nearer to that state, in which ‘ the 
knowledge of the Lord shail fill the earth as the waters cover the 
seas,” a better understanding of the Scriptures may be confidently 
hoped for and expected. It cannot be rationally supposed, that this 
will be communicated by a miraculous interposition. It must result 
from candid, patient, long-continued, and radical investigation of 
the language and idiom of the sacred writers. Interpretations 
a priori have long enough had their sway in the church; and it is 
very manifest, that a more judicious and truly Protestant mode of 
thinking and reasoning, in respect to the interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures, has commenced, and bids fair to be extensively adopted. 

Whether the following sheets will contribute to aid this great 
object, must be left to the readers of them to decide. JY can only 


PREFACE. Vil 


say, that [ have aimed at the accomplishment of this end, and that, 
if I have failed in respect to it, one great design of my undertaking 
and labours is defeated. . 

Probably some of my readers may think, that the introductory 
dissertations are more extended than was necessary, and that they 
are too minute and circumstantial. My only reply to this is, that 
an acquaintance with what has of late years. been done, and with 
what is now doing, to shake the credit of our epistle, and to eject it 
from the canon of sacred writings to which appeal can be made in 
proof of Scripture doctrine, would of itself be an ample apology for 
all the pains [ have taken, and all the minuteness of examination 
into which I have gone. Should it be said, that the German writers, 
whom I have opposed, are as yet unknown in this country, and that 
it was inexpedient to make them known; the allegation would only 
show how little acquainted the person who makes it is, with the 
actual State of our present knowledge, and with the relations in 
which we stand to the German authors. Our youth are every day 
resorting to Germany for education ; our colleges are filling up with 
professors who have been educated there; the language of Germany 
is becoming an object of classical study in our public seminaries of 
learning; and in a multitude of ways, through the medium of trans- 
lations as well as by the knowledge of the German language, is 
the literature of Germany producing an influence upon our 
own. 

In this state of things, the attacks made upon the Pauline origin, 
or upon the canonical credit, of the epistle to the Hebrews, cannot 
be kept back from the knowledge of our intelligent and industrious 
students. It is better, therefore, to meet the whole matter with an 
open face, fairly to examine it, and either to yield to the force of 
arguments suggested by the critics of the old world, or to combat 
them in such a way as effectually to defend the positions which 
we take. Christian candour and impartiality demand this. The 
day of authority in the church is passed by; it is to be hoped, that 
the day of sound reason and of argument is to follow. It is better to 
convince men by an appeal to their understandings and their hearts, 
than it is to terrify them by holding the rod of authority over them, 
or to deter them from speaking out their convictions by arguments 
ad invidiam. These are the never-failing resource of minds, which 


Vili PREFACE. 


are conscious of possessing no better means than such, of convincing 
others, and which naturally resort to those which are most within 
their reach. 

Our religion seeks no concealment; it fears no assaults. If it 
will not stand the test of sober reason and of argument, it will not 
long have place in the world among enlightened men. Those who 
shrink from such tests, and declaim against the use of our reason, 
show their want of confidence in the cause which they profess to 
espouse. If they did but know it, they are already half won over 
to the ranks of doubters or of unbelievers. 

On the subjects of interpretation, one may well say, ‘‘ Drink 
deep, or taste not.” A half-illuminated interpreter doubts every 
thing, and sees nothing clearly. Would God, the rising generation 
of those who are devoted to the study of the Divine word, might 
feel deeply penetrated with the truth of this! It would be an event 
highly auspicious to the cause of truth in the world. 

In the new translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews which is here 
furnished, it has been my object to give a more exact view of the 
features of the original Greek, than is presented by our common 
English version. Of all the tasks which an interpreter performs, 
this is the most difficult. To make some kind of translation, is 
indeed a very easy thing; to follow on in the tracks of some other 
interpreter, is equally easy. But to translate, so as to make an 
author, who has composed in another language, altogether intel- 
ligible, and yet preserve all the shades, and colouring, and nice 
transitions, and (so far as may be) even the idioms themselves of 
the original, is the very highest and most difficult work which an 
interpreter is ever called to perform. A translation, faithfully pre- 
senting the original, is in itself a commentary. It is the sum of all 
an interpreter’s labours, exhibited in the briefest manner possible. 
Hence the little success that has attended most of the versions 
which have been made of the Scriptures. Their authors have either 
abridged or paraphrased the original; more commonly the latter. 
Neither is admissible, in a translation truly faithful. Whether I 
have shunned the one and the other, must be left to the judgment 
of the reader. 

I much prefer the Saxon English for a version of the Bible. 


I have accordingly chosen it whenever I could, and have purposely 


PREFACE. ix 


avoided substituting Latinizing English in its room, unless a regard 
to the meaning of the original compelled me to do it. 

It is proper to advertise the reader, that in the translation I have 
purposely avoided the usual division into chapters and verses, which 
is exhibited in our common editions of the Scriptures. I have done 
this, because the sense is sometimes disturbed by it, and the reader 
is unwarily led to associate things together in a manner which the 
writer of the epistle never intended. 

The words or phrases which are supplied in the translation, and 
which are not expressed in the original Greek, I have uniformly 
included in brackets, so that the reader may at once see the extent 
of the liberty that has been taken in order to render the version 
more explicit. 

For the sake of accommodation, the designation of the chapters 
and verses is made upon the margin; and the larger pauses mark 
the end of a verse, when they occur in a line that is opposite to any 
number designating a verse. 

I have, in most cases, repeated the greater part of the translation, 
in printing the commentary or notes upon the original. This has 
been done merely to save the reader the trouble of turning con- 
tinually back to the version, which is often tedious, and always 
inconvenient. But I have not been careful always to repeat 
verbatim, in the notes, the words of the translation, as they stand 
at the commencement of the volume. In fact, the reader may 
regard the version at the head of the volume, and that contained 
among the notes, as two different versions. They were, for the 
most part, made at different times, and in a measure independently 
of each other. The former is that on which I have bestowed most 
pains as to diction. The latter is merely designed to facilitate the 
labours of the student. 

The translation is followed by a continuous commentary upon the 
whole epistle. When difficulties demanded special and extended 
investigation, I have thrown the result of such investigation into 
Excursus at the end. There, subjects of difficulty can be treated, 
and studied, with more convenience and more fully, than if inter- 
mixed with the usual series of exegetical notes. 

I have consulted commentaries both ancient and modern, while 
composing the exegetical part of the work. Chrysostom, Theodoret, 


x PREFACE. 


and Theophylact, are the ancient interpreters, who may be read 
with much interest, and with some profit. I owe to them not a few 
hints, which I regard as valuable. From more recent critics 1 have 
derived very considerable aid, which I would gratefully acknow- 
ledge. After all, I have examined other writers, rather for the 
sake of correcting or enlarging my own impressions, than for the 
sake of abridging or condensing their works. My uniform method 
of study has been, to exhaust the resources of my own mind before 
I applied to others for help. But I have neither despised nor neg- 
lected this help; nor have I, in any case, followed the opinion of 
any critic, unless I was satisfied with the reasons which he gives for 
it. Critics of very different sentiments and views, I have consulted. 
Impartial investigation demanded this; and I should be but ill 
satisfied, in respect to the discharge of my own duty, if I had not 
done it. 

The interpretations which I have adopted and defended, are the 
result of long-continued and often-repeated labour and study. This, 
however, does not of itself enhance their value to the reader.” They 
must stand by their own internal value, if they do stand, and not 
by the length of time during which they have been coming mto 
existence. 

I have not made it an object to transcribe other commentators, 
and continually to refer to them. It is a mode of commentary to 
which I have a dislike; particularly so, when it is carried to the 
excess to which many interpreters have carried it. I have there- 
fore retreated as far from it as my views of usefulness and propriety 
would permit me to do. The ‘reader will have, at least, one 
advantage from this. He will not be compelled, merely agere 
actum, to read over what he had read before. 

To say, that critical commentaries on the Scriptures, of the 
higher kind, are wanting in the English language, would be only to 
repeat what every biblical student has long felt and confessed. The 
time has come, when this evil ought, if possible, to be redressed. 
Whether the attempt to assist in this great work, which I have made 
in the following sheets, can be justly regarded as a successful one, 
is not for the writer to judge. 

It will be understood, of course, that the work is designed for 
students in theology, and for those who engage in a truly critical 


PREFACE. xl 


study of the Scriptures. With commentaries designed for the edifi- 
cation of Christian readers at large, I believe the English world is 
better supplied than any other part of Christendom. Henry, 
Patrick, Guise, Orton, Doddridge, Brown, Clark, Scott, and 
others, have published works of this nature. It is not my design to 
occupy the ground which they have already occupied. The reader 
of my work must not expect sermonizing commentary, but an 
attempt at philological and critical interpretation. Cuique suum. 
I bless God for raising up such commentators as those just men- 
tioned, for Christians at large; but the professed interpreters of his 
word need other aid, and that very different from what their works 
afford, in order to attain a fundamentally critical knowledge of the 
original Scriptures. 

In regard to the Excursus, different opinions will not improbably 
be enterfained respecting them. The expediency of them, their 
length, and the correctness of some of the positions which they 
advance, may all be called in question. In matters so difficult and 
delicate, and which have so long been the theme of controversy, it 
cannot bé expected that there will be, at once, an entire and uni- 
versal agreement of opinion. The writer of these sheets does not 
venture to flatter himself with the expectation, that all will adopt 
his views. Of one thing, however, he is very confident; and this 
is, that he claims no authority of any kind over the opinions of 
others. But he thinks it proper to express his sincere desire, that 
those who may differ from him as to some of the opinions advanced 
in the Excursus, or in the body of the work, would thoroughly 
examine the subjects in respect to which they may think him erro- 
neous, before they pass sentence of condemnation. It is not too 
much, moreover, to request, that they would assign their reasons 
why they differ from him. In this way, differences of opinion may 
ultimately aid in the discovery of truth, with respect to dark and 
difficult subjects, and so prove to be of real utility to the church. 

Subjects of high and awful interest in religion should not be 
treated with obtrusive confidence, nor with presumption. [ shall 
most thankfully accept any better light than I now have, let it come 
from what quarter it may. Being a Protestant, and nullius addictus 
jurare in verba magistri, I deem it not unreasonable to expect, that 
where I may be in the wrong, I may be convinced by argument, not 


Xil PREFACE. 


silenced by authority. Appeals should ever be made, by Pro- 
testants, to the understanding, not ad invidiam, nor to current or 
popular prejudice. 

With these explanations of my views and feelings, I submit the 
work to the friends of exegetical study, not without much solicitude 
as to the opinion which the wise and the good may entertain 
respecting it; but still, with some expectation, that it may serve to 
aid such as are aiming to attain a critical knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures, or, at least, excite some to efforts which shall end in the pro- 
duction of better Commentaries on the Scriptures than are yet 
before the public. 

The responsibility of publishing a work like the present, is very 
great. It is one from which I should shrink, if, on the whole, I 
could come to the conclusion, that duty permitted me to decline it. 
As my conviction now is, I must venture to commit it to God, and 
to the Christian public, hoping that it may contribute, in some mea- 
sure, to advance the knowledge of a very interesting portion of his 
Holy Word. 


M. STUART. 


Theological Seminary, Andover, 
March 25th, 1828. 


COMMENTARY. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§ 1. Preliminary Remarks. 


No part of the New Testament has occasioned so much difference of 
opinion, and given rise to so much literary discussion among critics, as 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. The principal reason of this seems to be, 
that this epistle does not exhibit, either in the beginning of it or else- 
where, any express evidence of having been addressed to any particular 
church, nor any designation of the author’s name. If it had been 
expressly inscribed to a particular church, and if the author had origi- 
nally affixed his name to it, there would of course have been as little 
occasion for dispute, respecting the persons to whom it was addressed, 
or in regard to the author of it, as there has been in the case of the 
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, or Galatians. 

At an early period of the Christian era, the eastern and the western 
churches were divided in opinion respecting the author and canonical 
authority of this epistle. In modern times, and especially of late, every 
topic which its literary history could suggest, has been the subject of 
animated discussion. It has been disputed whether it is an epistle, an 
essay, or a homily ; whether it was written by Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, 
Clement of Rome, or by some other person ; and whether it was origi- 
nally written in Hebrew or in Greek. There has also been a difference 
of opinion as to the place where, and the time when, it was written. On 
every one of these topics, critics have been and still are divided. Nor 
has this division been occasioned merely by a difference in theological 
opinions. The subjects of dispute have, in this case, been generally re- 
garded rather as topics of literature, than of religious sentiment or dec- 
trine. Men of very different views and feelings, in other respects, have 


often been found united in the same ranks, when questions respecting the 
B 


2 § 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 


epistle to the Hebrews have been disputed. Such too is the case, even 
at the present time. All the learning and ability, which have as yet 
been summoned to the contest, have failed to achieve a victory so com- 
plete, as to bring about a general acknowledgment that all ground for 
further dispute 1s fairly removed. 

The student who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has merely 
read the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which 
he has entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul, 
finds himself thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he 
begins to make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in question, 
as are usually made respecting any ancient writing. He finds philolo- 
gists and critics, of great reputation in the church, strangely divided 
and opposed to each other, in respect to every topic to be examined. 
What he reads in one author, which perhaps for a time satisfies his 
mind, he finds controverted, shaken, or overthrown by another ; who 
again, in his turn, receives castigation from a third; while a fourth, a 
fifth, and a sixth, differ each from all his predecessors. The curiosity of 
the inquirer thus becomes roused, and he begins to pursue some train of 
thought or investigation, with the hope, or perhaps with confidence, that 
it will lead him to an important and satisfactory result. He presses for- 
ward with eagerness, peruses and re-peruses modern critics, dives into 
the recesses of the ancient ones, and finds, perhaps, after all his toil, 
that he has been pursuing a phantom, which recedes as fast as he 
advances. Perplexed with doubt, and wearied at last with the pursuit, he 
becomes exposed to the danger of entirely abandoning his object, or of 
settling down in the cold and comfortless conclusion, that nothing satis- 
factory can be known in regard to it. 

Such, or not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of 
nearly every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions 
of early education, and determined seriously and thoroughly to investi- 
gate and weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in 
‘respect to the topics suggested by the literary history of the epistle to 
the Hebrews. He who begins such an investigation, with his mind 
already made up that Paul wrote this epistle, and directed it to the 
Hebrews of Palestine, may indeed spare himself most of the perplexity, 
in which an inquirer of the class just named, will be involved. But 
then, if his mind is already made up, what need is there of further 
investigation? And why not spare himself the time and trouble which 
it must cost ? 


§ 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 3 


Minds of a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine 
for themselves ; to ‘‘ prove all things,” and then “to hold fast that 
which is good,’’ if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this 
character. It is for such that the following investigations are intended ; 
and it is only to persons of this class, that they can be particularly use- 
ful, even supposing that they are conducted in such a manner as the 
subject demands. The writer commenced them in the discharge of his 
duty, as a lecturer upon the epistle in question. He found many 
unforeseen and unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been accus- 
tomed, with those around him, to regard Paul as the author of the 
epistle to the Hebrews; and he did not well know, until he came to 
examine, how long, and how extensively, this had been doubted. Men 
of high reputation in the church, and who admitted the canonical 
authority of the epistle, he found to have been doubtful in regard to the 
question, Who was the author of it ?- Neither Luther nor Calvin admitted 
it to be from the hand of Paul; and so early, at least, as the latter part 
of the second century, more or less of the Western churches seem to 
have disputed or rejected its authority. 

With such facts before him, he became deeply interested in the sub- 
ject, and resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind. For this pur- 
pose, he directed his attention principally toward the original sources of 
evidence, although he has not neglected any writer of importance among 
modern critics. The results of his investigation he now gives to the 
public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the minds of others, 
they will, at least, excite some to engage in the discussion of the topics 
presented, until, sooner or later, light enough is poured in, to scatter 
the remaining darkness which rests upon them. 


§ 2. Is the epistle to the Hebrews appropriately called an epistle, or 
zs tt a homily or essay ? 


Berger, a late critic of some eminence and considerable acuteness, 
has advanced and endeavoured to support the opinion, that this epistle 
(so called) was originally a homily or address to some assembly of 
Christians, which was afterwards reduced to writing by some of the 
preacher’s friends or hearers. Others also have doubted, whether it is 
properly named an epistle. But none have argued on this topic so much 
at length, or with so much effort, as Berger. On this account, it may 
be proper briefly to consider the principal arguments which he has 

b2 


4 §2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 


advanced ; briefly, because the topic seems not to be of sufficient 
importance to justify one for occupying much time in the discussion 
of it. 

(1.) ‘The writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews,’ says Berger, 
‘calls it Adyoc wapakAjoewc, a hortatory address, xilil. 22, which 
accords well with the contents of the piece.’ 

But Paul, one may reply, often uses the word zapaxadéw in his 
epistles. May not, then, an epistle of his in which zapaxadéw is used, 
be appropriately enough styled a Adyoe tapaxdjcewc ? May not any 
epistle, containing precept and exhortation, be so denominated? An 
instance exactly in point, is the circular letter respecting the question 
about circumcision, sent by the apostolic council at Jerusalem to the 
churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; which is called a rapaxAnove, 
Acts xv. 31. The words of Luke are, ‘‘ When they had read, [the 
epistle,| they rejoiced éxi rq wapaxdyjoee.” 

(2.) ‘The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses \aXety instead of 
ypagew ; which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than an 
epistle.’ 

But an appeal to the Greek Concordance shews that AaXety is used 
every where in the epistles contained in the New Testament ; and a cor- 
responding word of the same import, is in fact used in the epistolary 
style of all nations and languages. No evidence, therefore, in favour of 
Berger’s opinion, can be deduced from such an usage in the epistle to 
the Hebrews. 

(3.) Berger supposes the basis of our present epistle to the Hebrews 
to have been the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia, as 
recorded in Acts xill. 14—41. Some disciple and friend of his, he con- 
jectures, reduced this discourse to writing, commenting or enlarging 
upon various parts of it; and finally adding of himself, to the original 
discourse, the four last verses of our present epistle. It is to these four 
verses he supposes the copyist to refer, when he says, ‘‘ I have written 
to you dua Bpaxéwr, briefly,” viz. by adding only the four last verses of 
the epistle, as properly his own. 

To these considerations we may reply, first, that the address of Paul 
to the church of Antioch, in Pisidia, exhibits two very important topics, 
as prominent parts of the discourse, which are not at all commented on 
(one of them is not even adverted to) in the epistle to the Hebrews; I mean 
the subject of John the Baptist’s testimony concerning Christ, and the 


& 2, IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 5 


resurrection of Jesus, Acts xiii. 24, 25, 30—37. Would it not be 
strange, that a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics 
of the discourse which he designed to explain or enforce ? 

Secondly, da Bpayéwy éxiorercha iptv does not admit of the reference 
which Berger supposes ; for it is necessarily connected with the preceding 
part of the epistle to the Hebrews, and not (as he asserts) with the suc- 
ceeding, part ; to which it can be attached only by doing violence to the 
ordinary laws of language. 

(4.) * The word apijv, in Hebrews xiii. 21, shews that the original 
discourse ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made 
by the transcriber.’ 

The answer is, that amjy here stands after a doxology, where Paul 
always inserts it; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the very 
middle of his letters. E. g. Rom. i. 25. ix. 5. xi. 36. xv. 33. xvi. 20. 
Gal. i. 5. Eph. ii. 21. etc. It follows, that in this case, the insertion 
of a&pjy cannot afford any valid proof that our epistle ended with it. 

(5.) ‘The whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected 
chain of discourse ; like to an essay or a homily, and not after the man- 
ner of a familiar letter.’ 

But, it may well be asked in reply to this, May not and do not men 
reason, and regularly discuss subjects, in familiar letters or epistles ? 
Has not Paul discussed and reasoned in his epistles to the Romans, the 
Galatians, the Ephesians, and in others? Is there any more regularity 
of structure in the epistle to the Hebrews, than there is in that to the 
Romans? Surely the regularity and orderly discussion, exhibited by 
any composition, can never prove that this composition was not an 
epistle. At most, it can only serve to show that it was not an ordinary 
epistle on topics of little moment. Nor because a great part, or even 
the whole, of an epistle is of such a tenor, that it might have been 
spoken as an address or a homily, will it prove that it was not originally 
or was not designed to be, an epistle. For every species of composi- 
tion in use among men, is employed in epistolary writing. 

The reasons of Berger, then, for the opinion which he has advanced, 
will not bear the test of examination. I may add, that the whole ques- 
tion is but little if anything better than logomachy. Of what conse- 
quence can it be, whether the so-called epistle to the Hebrews, was, in 
its first conception, designed to be an epistle or a homily? But what- 
ever the original design was, I cannot believe, with Berger, that our 
epistle is a kind of commentary on an original discourse of Paul. That 


6 § 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 


the author (the original anthor) of the epistle wrote down his own con- 
ceptions, or at least dictated them to an amanuensis, appears to me so 
deeply stamped on every part of the composition, that it seems hardly 
possible for a discerning and unprejudiced reader not to perceive it. 
But whether or not the author first spoke the words which the letter 
contains, to some assembly, and afterwards reduced them to writing, 
can make no difference as to the tenor and general character of the 
epistle ; so that dispute about this would be only dispute about the 
name to be given to the writing ; and how would this differ from logo- 
machy ? 

However, if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves 
respecting it. The address every where is like that of an epistle, viz. 
in the second person plural; with the single exception, that the writer 
occasionally uses a koiywotc, that is, he includes himself with those 
whom he addresses, and so employs the first person plural. But this is 
a practice so common in epistolary correspondence, that it occasions no 
difficulty in the case under consideration. 

It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the 
particular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. 
But other particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. 
The epistle every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent 
from the writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. 
How could he, in a homily, ask them to ‘‘ pray that he might be 
restored to them?” Heb. xii. 19. How could he promise to “ make 
them a visit, in company with Timothy, if he should come speedily ?” 
xill. 23. The first of these cases, at least, belongs to that part of the 
epistle, which Berger acknowledges to be the original discourse of Paul. 

I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as 
Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured,) that the hand of a 
commentator is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from 
beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more 
warmly and fully from the heart? Here is no patchwork ; no congeries 
of heterogeneous materials; no designed, exegetical commentary ; no 
trace of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous 
work ; produced by the mighty impulse of one and the same mind, 
fraught with knowledge of the subject which it discusses, glowing with 
benevolent feelings toward those who are addressed, and agitated with 
alarm at the danger to which they are exposed. Sooner should I think 
of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, and 


& 3. INSCRIPTION TO THE EPISTLE. 7 


assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the 
hand of a copyist, or a mere commentator, into the epistle to the 
Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, 
one mind performed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics 
too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased 


3 3. General considerations respecting the present inscription to the 
‘ epistle. 

In what latitude is the word Hebrews, used in the inscription to this 
epistle, to be understood ? 

Certainly not as designating ali Hebrews of every country. To the 
unbelieving Jews most evidently it was not addressed, From beginning 
to end, the persons addressed are regarded as having made a profession 
of the Christian faith; for the great object of the epistle, as all agree, 
is to guard them against apostacy from this faith. 

To the believing Jews of every country, it could not have been pri- 
marily and immediately addressed. It is altogether improbable that all 
such, in every country, were in special danger of apostacy, when this 
letter was written. We know from the epistles of Paul, that many 
churches planted by him, and made up in part of Jews, were, at the 
period when our epistle must have been written, in a very flourishing 
condition, and eminent for Christian faith and holiness of life. Other 
circumstances mentioned in the epistle, and pertaining to those whom 
he addressed, cannot be applied to all the believing Hebrews of that 
period. The writer speaks of the great fight of afflictions and the loss 
of property, to which those had been subjected for the sake of religion 
whom he addresses, x. 32—34 ; occurrences which surely had not taken 
place, in every church where Jews were found. 

A still more convincing argument, in favour of the sentiment just 
advanced, is drawn from what the writer himself has stated, at the close 
of his letter. He asks the prayers of those whom he addresses, that he 
may be speedily restored to them, xiii. 19; and promises, if Timothy 
return in a short time, that he will in his company pay them a visit, 
xill. 23. He could not mean that he would, in company with Timothy, 
visit all the churches where Jews were to be found throughout the world. 
And could Timothy be known to them all? Or could the circumstances 
of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be so well known by them all, 
as the manner of address here necessarily supposes ? 

These considerations render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews 


8 § 4. TO WHAT CHURCH WAS IT WRITTEN ? 


were that are named by the present inscription, they must have been 
those of some particular church and country. And even if we pay no 
regard to the inscription, (but suppose it, after some time had elapsed, 
to have been affixed to the epistle by another hand, as it probably 
was,) the fact that Jewish converts are addressed, and such too as 
belonged to some particular church or region, is, from the internal 
evidence of the epistle just stated, too plain to admit of any considerable 
doubt. 


§4. To what church was the epistle to the Hebrews written ? 


A question replete with difficulties, and which has been much agitated 
by late critics. We can easily satisfy ourselves, that the epistle was 
designed for Jewish converts ; and exclusively (in a certain sense of this 
word) designed for them, i. e. originally adapted to them throughout, 
in its texture and mode of reasoning. But where did these converts 
live 2 No salutation, such as stands at the head of nearly all the 
apostolic epistles, gives us information on this point. The conclusion 
of the letter, moreover, contains nothing definite enough to settle this 
question. We are left, then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and 
from internal evidence, such information as is necessary to determine it. 
But the first of these has been regarded by many critics, particularly 
by recent ones, as too indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of 
an inquirer; and the second is so indeterminate, at least it has been 
often considered so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence, 
but rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same 
passages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to 
support conclusions directly opposed to each other ; and in other cases, 
definite conclusions have been drawn in support of particular opinions, 
from texts which appear to be capable of conveying only a general idea. 

The task of examining the principal opinions which have been 
advanced in respect to the original destination of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, is tedious and appalling ; but it has become absolutely neces- 
sary to every one, who makes any just pretensions to acquaintance with 
the literary history of this epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of 
the discussion, and justice to the arguments of others, will permit ; and 
I shall examine only those opinions which the authors of them have 
endeavoured to support by arguments, omitting a particular discussion 
of those which have been thrown out as mere conjecture. For a mere 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 9 


conjecture that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts at Rome, in 
Spain, or at Babylon, (such conjectures have been made by critics of 
no small note,) is sufficiently answered by a conjecture that it was 
directed to Jewish converts at some other place. If no weight be laid 
in the scales, it requires none to adjust the balance. 

In our investigation respecting the question under consideration, we 
meet with critics who have maintained, that the epistle was written to 
Jewish Christians in Galatia; at Thessalonica; at Corinth; or to dis- 
persed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled from Palestine in 
order to avoid the persecutions to which they were there exposed. The 
majority of critics, however, have held, as nearly all the ancient churches 
did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. I 
proceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order here suggested. 


§ 5. Was the Epistle written to the Church in Galatia? 


The opinion, that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts in Gala- 
tia, has been advanced and maintained with no small degree of acute- 
ness and learning by Storr, late Professor of Theology at the University 
of Tubingen. I shall present a summary of the arguments which he 
uses to establish it; and in order to avoid repetition, and also to render 
the discussion as perspicuous as may be, I shall examine the validity of 
each argument, as it is adduced. 

He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews could not be 
directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears from Heb. ii. 3, 
that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such as heard 
Christ speak in person; from xil.4, and xiii. 7, that they had as yet 
suffered no bloody persecution ; and from vi. 10, xiii. 3, 10, and x. 34, 
that so far from having received charity from other churches, they had 
themselves contributed to the support of others. Now, as neither of 
these things can, in his view, be truly said respecting the church in 
Palestine, he concludes, that our epistle must have been directed to 
some church abroad. 

I shall not stop here to examine, whether a proper interpretation of 
the passages on which he relies to support his opinion, will in fact sup- 
port it, as this subject must be examined in another place. I must 
content myself, at present, with simply remarking, that if he has rightly 
construed the texts to which he refers, they only serve to show, at most, 
that the church in Palestine was not the one to which the epistle was 
directed ; leaving the question still untouched, whether it was sent, as 


10 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


he maintains, to the church in Galatia. As my present intention is to 
examine only positive arguments in favour of his opinion, I pass this 
consideration without further remark. 

Most, if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies, are grounded 
on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general nature of them 
may be thus stated. ‘‘ Certain facts relative to the Galatians and the 
Hebrews, are known from history, and from the epistles which bear 
their names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on any other 
ground, than by the supposition, that the epistles to the Hebrews and 
Galatians were cotemporaneously written, and directed severally to the 
Jewish and Gentile parts of the same church. This being admitted, 
several things, otherwise strange or inexplicable, may be easily accounted 
for; and consequently, we may or must admit such a composition and 
direction of these epistles.” 

Let us examine the particulars, which go to make up the general 
argument that I have just stated. 

(1.) “As the epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the churches 
in Palestine, and as all the churches abroad consisted of a mixture of 
Jews and Gentiles, it is a singularity very striking, and at first appearance 
inexplicable, how it should come to pass that the epistle to the Gala- 
tians is written exclusively to Gentile converts, and the epistle to 
the Hebrews exclusively to Jewish ones. But all appearance of 
difficulty vanishes, if we suppose that the two epistles were sent, at the 
same time, to the church in Galatia; each to the respective party for 
whom it was intended. A supposition which removes such difficulties, 
must be regarded as a probable one.” 

This supposition is not wanting in ingenuity; and at first view, it may 
be regarded as not being destitute of probability. But then, the critic 
must ask, How far can we be allowed to draw conclusions, in respect to 
subjects of this nature, from mere conjectural probabilities? I may 
conjecture thousands of circumstances, in themselves probable, which 
would liberate me from difficulties presented by particular passages, or 
by whole books of the Old Testament and the New; on which conjec- 
tures, however, it would be very uncritical and unsafe for me to build 
conclusions, in respect to any matter of fact. Even if we allow the 
probability, then, of Storr’s conjecture, it cannot add much real weight 
to the cause which he endeavours to support. 

Such a probability, however, cannot well be allowed. There are 
circumstances, in the epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews, relative 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? iit 


to the condition of the persons respectively addressed, which serve to 
evince, that the Galatian church could not, at the same time, have been 
addressed by both of these letters. This I shall have farther occasion to 
show, in the sequel. In the mean time, it may suffice to remark here, 
that it is far from being certain, as Storr assumes it to be, that the 
epistle to the Galatians is addressed exclusively to Gentile converts. 
When the apostle speaks of their being “‘ shut up under the law, before 
the gospel was preached;” and of “‘ the law having been their instructer 
to bring them to Christ,” Gal. ili. 23,24; can those whom he thus 
addresses have been only Gentiles? And when he speaks of their 
‘“having been in a state of minority before Christ came ;” of their ‘having 
been vm, and in bondage to the elements of the world,” i.e. the 
ritual ceremonies of the Mosaic law, Gal. iv. 1—3; it seems to be very 
far from being obvious that only Gentile converts are addressed. Indeed, 
so plainly do these passages appear to respect Jews, that a critic of no 
less note than Noesselt, considers it as certain, that Jewish converts only 
are addressed in the epistle to the Galatians ; an opinion incapable, 
no doubt, of being defended, but still serving to show that Storr has, in 
the case before us, taken much more for granted than can be readily 
allowed. 

Moreover, it is not so strgular as Storr represents it to be, that Jewish 
converts should be exclusively addressed in one case, and Gentile ones in 
another. The church at Ephesus, for example, consisted, beyond all 
doubt, of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Yet, in the epistle which 
Paul wrote to them, he has addressed only the Gentiles, (ra %0vn— 
&xpofvoria, Eph. ii. 11, also ili. 1.) But who ever thought it necessary, 
in order to account for this, to suppose that Paul also wrote another 
letter, at the same time, to the Jewish part of the church at Ephesus? 

Besides, what object could be answered by writing two separate let- 
ters at the same time? Was it not a matter of course, that the whole 
church should be made acquainted with an apostolic letter to one part of 
it? Is there not abundant evidence, that the letters of the apostles were 
regarded and treated by the early churches as encyclical, or (as we call 
them) circulars ? When Peter wrote his second epistle to various churches 
in Asia Minor, he adverts to Paul’s epistles as being already known to 
them, 2 Pet. iii. 16. And when Clement of Rome, within the first 
century, wrote his epistle to the Corinthians, he made extracts from 
nearly all the epistles of Paul, without even naming them; which 
certainly implies, that he regarded the Corinthian church as being 


12 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


already well acquainted with them. Such being the state of knowledge 
respecting the apostolic epistles, in the early churches, it is a very 
improbable supposition, that either the epistle to the Galatians, or that 
to the Hebrews, was designed to be kept secret from the Jewish or 
Gentile Christians in Galatia, if written to them. Indeed, an arrange- 
ment of this nature would have worn the appearance of a worldly 
policy, and of a kind of double-dealing ; which is far from being cha- 
racteristic of Paul, and which would have served rather to alienate than 
to reconcile those who were ready to renounce his authority. 

The possibility, that the two letters should have been written at the 
same time, may, for the sake of argument, be conceded. But the 
necessity of such a supposition, on grounds alleged by Storr, is contra- 
dicted by the state of the epistle to the Ephesians, which is addressed to 
Gentiles only. If the probability of it has not already been shown to be 
little or nothing; in the sequel, I trust, this will be made satisfactorily 
apparent. 

(2.) ‘* The epistle to the Hebrews,” says Storr, ‘“‘has no salutation, 
(which all the other epistles of Paul have ;)' it wants the usual greeting 
at the close; and it nowhere exhibits the name of the author. These 
facts, now, are easily accounted for, if we suppose that this epistle was 
sent at the same time with that to the Galatians, which Paul says he 
wrote with his own hand, Gal. vi. 11. It is probable, that the epistle 
to the Hebrews was written by the aid of an amanuensis; and as it was 
sent along with an epistle written and subscribed by Paul in his own 
hand-writing, a salutation and subscription were unnecessary or super- 
fluous.”’ 

But why so? Why did not the longer epistle to the Hebrews need as 
many marks of authenticity as the shorter one to the Galatians? Is the 
subject less important? Are the persons addressed less regarded by the 
writer ? And why should the fact, (if it be one, for this too is mere con- 
jecture,) that an amanuensis wrote one letter, supersede all effort to 
authenticate it, when Paul has been so careful to render the other letter 
authentic, which was written with his own hand? During such a contest 
between parties as existed in Galatia, is there any probability that either 
letter would be left deficient as to evidences of genuineness, when the 
whole weight of the apostle’s authority was needed to check the growing 
evil there? Would not the apostle at least intimate plainly in one 
letter, that he had written another? So far from salutation or subscrip- 
tion being superfluous, in such a case, the one or the other, or rather 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA 7 13 


both of them, would seem to be peculiarly needed, in order that 
neither letter should fail of its proper destination, or have its genuine- 
ness disputed. 

(3.) “In Gal. vi. 16. it is said, ‘ As many as walk by this rule, peace 
be on them, and mercy be upon the Israel of God.’ Now the phrase, 
Israel of God, means the Jewish converts in Galatia, in distinction 
from the Gentile ones; and this conveys an intimation, that the apostle 
had written to these Jewish converts, as well as to them, the Gentile ones.”’ 

This argument, however, is built upon an exegesis of the passage 
quoted, which is inadmissible. The Israel of God is plainly a figura- 
tive name for true Christians. Paul had shown in the previous part of 
his epistle, that those ‘‘ who are of the faith,” whether Jews or Gentiles, 
are the children of Abraham, iii. 7, 29. At the close, he pronounces a 
blessing on such as adopt the principles, and obey the injunctions, 
which he had communicated ; and concludes it, very appositely to his 
purpose, by calling such the Israel of God, kai éxi rov IapajA rot Ocod. 
The xai which stands before this clause, seems clearly to be explicative, 
and not conjunctive ; amounting merely to our English namely, even, 
to wit, or to some word of the same import, and placing roy "IopaiA in 
apposition with the preceding én’ abrove. 

But even supposing the apostle does advert here only to the 
Jewish converts, as such; where is the intimation to be found that he 
had written to them? Or, if he had, that the letter was the same with 
our present epistle to the Hebrews ? 7 

(4.) “The epistles to the Hebrews and to the Galatians must 
have been written about the same time; and probabiy both were 
written at Corinth, during Paul’s first abode there. Here Faul 
found Priscilla and Aquila, who had fled from Italy, on account of 
Claudius’ decree which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts xviii. 1, 2; 
and at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, the writer says, They of 
Italy (oi x6 rije "IraXiac) salute you, which means, “ Priscilla and 
Aquila from Italy salute you.” The coincidence of such circumstances 
renders it probable that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at 
Corinth.—And as to the epistle to the Galatians, it was written between 
the time of Paul’s second and third visit to Galatia; and consequently 
must have been written during some of his journeys recorded in Acts 
Xvl. xvii. and xvili., which are occupied with the history of the apostle 
in the interval of time between those visits. But if written during this 
interval, when can it with so much probability be considered to have 


14 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


been written, as within the eighteen months’ abode of Paul at Corinth, 
during the same time? Consequently, it is probable that both letters 
were written at the same place, and about the same time; and it may 
therefore be concluded, that the supposition of their having been sent 
to Galatia at the same time, is correct.” 

Ingenious and specious as this may appear at first view, it is far from 
being satisfactory, when we come to examine its parts in detail. In 
respect to those circumstances, which Storr represents as showing that 
the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth, they are far from 
being decisive. Supposing (with him) that ot ao rije “Iradéac, in the 
greeting at the close, means Priscilla and Aquila; is it necessary that 
the salutation from them should have been sent from Corinth? Did 
they not afterwards travel with Paul to Ephesus? Acts xvii. 18, 19. 
And were they not probably at Rome during his captivity there? In 
Rom. xxvi. 3, a salutation is sent to them as being at Rome; and of 
course they were there before Paul went thither as a prisoner, because 
his epistle to the Romans was written before that event, Rom. i. 9—12. 
How then can we assume that Corinth is the only place from which 
Paul sent, or could send, the salutation of these Italians to Galatia? 

But another consideration must be brought into our account. Storr’s 
exegesis of the expression ot ad tic "Iradiag is altogether improbable. 
How should two strangers, lately (mpoopdarwce) come from Rome to 
Corinth, Acts xviii. 2, be so well acquainted with the church in Galatia, 
(situated in the interior and very remotest part of Asia Minor, and 
having but little intercourse with the world,) that it was not necessary 
even to name them to this church, but simply to advert to them by the 
periphrasis, of ao rijc ’Iradiac? How did the Galatians know that 
Priscilla and Aquila were at Corinth? Or how could they distinguish 
them from any other Jews that fled from Rome, after the edict of 
Claudius proscribing the Jews was published? Besides, in all other 
cases where Paul sends greetings from these Italians, or to them, he 
calls them by name; e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 2 Tim. iv. 19. Rom. xvi. 3. 
This view of the subject, therefore, renders highly improbable the very 
circumstance which Storr has assumed as a fact, in order to make out 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth. 

Next, as to the epistle to the Galati:ns. It was written, he says, 
between Paul’s second and third journey to Galatia; therefore, most 
probably, during his stay at Corinth, which happened in that interval 
of time. 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 15 


But, if we follow the account of Luke in the Acts, it is difficult, nay, 
impossible, to defend the supposition of Storr, that the epistle to the 
Galatians was written after the second visit of Paul to Galatia. Acts 
xvi. 6, gives us the first intimation of a visit to Galatia by Paul; and his 
second visit is described in Acts xviii. 22, 23, which was after he had 
left Corinth, and travelled through Palestine and Asia Minor. I 
know, indeed, some critics have conjectured that Paul made a journey 
to Galatia previously to the one first mentioned by Luke in Acts xvi. 6. 
But of what avail are conjectures in such cases, when they are supported 
neither by the epistle to the Galatians, nor by the history of Paul ? 

Nothing, then, but supposition is offered by Storr, to show that either 
the epistle to the Hebrews, or that to the Galatians, was written at 
Corinth, or that both were written about the same time ; and of course, 
these circumstances cannot be assumed as proved, or even as rendered 
probable, in order to build the conclusion on them, that the epistle to 
the Hebrews, and the epistle to the Galatians, were written simul- 
taneously to the same church. 

(5.) ‘Timothy originated from the neighbourhood of Galatia, and 
was no doubt in company with Paul during his journey there, as men- 
tioned in Acts xvi. 6. It is a singular circumstance, that although the 
apostle so often joins his name with his own, in the salutations contained 
in his other letters, he has not joined him in his epistle to the Galatians 
church; specially singular, in as much as Timothy must have been so 
well known to the Galatians, and as he was with Paul at Corinth. But 
this apparent singularity is accounted for, when we suppose that Timothy 
was sent with both the letters in question to the Galatians; who, of 
course, would receive his salutation from his own mouth.” 

But is it not more singular still, I ask, that Paul should say, at the 
close of the epistle to the Hebrews, Know ye that our brother Timothy 
is aroNedupévor, i.e. either sent away on some errand, or set at liberty? 
Was it necessary to tell the Galatian church this, when Timothy was 
before their eyes in propria persona? I know indeed that Storr, in 
order to avoid this striking incongruity, has translated yuwoxere rov 
adehpov Tyud0eov azodedupévoy thus, Receive honourably our brother 
Timothy who is sent to you; but it is a violence done to the natural 
import of the language, which no other respectable critic that I know 
of has sanctioned, and to do which, I must think, nothing but the 
eagerness of supporting a favourite theory could have led this excellent 
writer. 


16 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


(6.) “The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, both in matter and man- 
ner, has many striking coincidences with the epistle to the Hebrews.” 

No doubt this is true. But it is equally true also of other epistles of 
Paul: with the exception, that the subject in the epistle to the Gala- 
tians particularly resembles, in some important respects, that of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, and is prosecuted more extensively in the 
latter epistle, than in any of the other acknowledged epistles of Paul. 
Noesselt has used the same argument, in order to prove that the 
epistle to the Hebrews must have been written to the church in Thes- 
salonica; and Weber, to show that it was written to the Corinthians. 
Might it not be used, with similar effect, to show also that it was written 
to the Romans? Such an argument may be of some weight, in the 
question whether Paul, or some other person, wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews ; but it cannot be of much avail to show that this epistle was 
written to the church at Galatia, rather than to some other church. 

(7.) But the argument on which Storr seems to place most reliance of 
all, and which, if well founded, is of a historical, and not of a conjec- 
tural nature, is that deduced from 2 Pet. ii. 14—16. 

As this passage is not only adduced by Storr, for the purpose of 
showing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, 
but by him and many other critics of great reputation, for the pur- 
pose of proving that Paul must have been the author of the epistle 
to the Hebrews; in order to save repetition, I shall here examine it 
in reference to both of these topics, since I must of necessity institute 
an examination of it, with respect to the topic now under discussion. 

The passage runs thus: ‘“‘ Wherefore, beloved, since ye are in expec- 
tation of these things [viz. the changes described in the preceding con- 
text], make strenuous efforts that ye may be found of him [Christ] in 
peace, without spot and blameless; and consider the delay of our 
Lord to come, as a matter of favour: as also our beloved brother 
Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you; as 
[he has done] likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them of these 
things : in which are some things hard to be understood; which the 
ignorant and the unstable pervert, as they do the other Scriptures, to 
their own destruction.” 

To understand the nature of the argument drawn from this, we must 
advert to some circumstances mentioned in the epistles of Peter. His 
first epistle is directed to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet. i. 1. His second is directed to the same 


tO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? ily 


churches ; for he says, ‘‘ This second epistle, beloved, I write to you 
in which I am to stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,” 
2 Pet. iii. 1. To the above-named churches in Asia Minor, then, the 
second epistle of Peter was directed. 

The nature of Storr’s argument may now be understood. It is this: 
‘* All the epistles of Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, have desig- 
nated the churches to which they were sent; the epistle to the Hebrews 
does not. Peter says, that Paul had written a letter to the churches in 
Asia Minor, whom he addresses, as our beloved Paul hath writen To 
you. Now this cannot advert to any of his letters which have inscrip- 
tions, as they are not directed to the afore-named churches in Asia 
Minor. Consequently, Peter must refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, 
which is the only one that has no inscription. It follows, therefore, 
not only that Paul wrote this letter, but that he wrote it to some of 
the churches addressed by Peter. Most probably, then, it was written 
to Galatia. Especially is this credible, since the epistle to the Hebrews 
contains those very warnings and sentiments to which Peter adverts, as 
being comprised in the letter of Paul to the churches in Asia Minor, 
whom he addresses.” 

One is tempted, at first view, to acquiesce in a statement seemingly 
so probable, and to conclude, that the inference drawn by Storr is 
substantially supported. A closer examination, however, suggests formi- 
dable difficulties, which must not be passed over in silence. 

I omit, at present, any consideration respecting the genuineness of 
the second epistle of Peter, so much called in question, and disputed by 
many churches of ancient times. It is unnecessary here to take other 
ground in regard to it, than Storr himself has taken ; which is, to admit 
its genuineness. 

What then does the passage of Peter, now in question, teach us ? 

(1.) That Paul had written a letter to the churches whom Peter 
addressed, éypawev tiv. (2.) That he had urged on them the same 
considerations which Peter himself had urged; even as our beloved 
brother Paul hath written to you. (3.) That in all his epistles (viz. 
all that had been read by them,) he had urged the same, or the like, 
considerations ; as likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them con- 
cerning these things. 

The question, on which the point under discussion mainly turns, is 
What are the things to which Peter refers, as treated of in common hy 


him and by Paul ? 


18 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


To find an answer to this, we may make three suppositions. First, 
they are all the subjects treated of in the preceding part of Peter’s 
epistle ; or, secondly, they are those comprised in the preceding part of 
the third chapter; or thirdly, they are those things suggested by the 
immediate context, in connexion with the passage already cited. 

Now, the first of these suppositions cannot be admitted ; for Paul is 
so far from treating, in all his epistles, of every subject comprised in 
the whole of Peter’s second epistle, that he has nowhere treated of 
some of them. If Peter, then, referred to the epistles of Paul which 
are now extant, it is clear he did not mean to say, that Paul had in 
every epistle of his discussed the same subjects, as he himself had done, 
throughout his second letter. 

But Storr urges in a special manner the second supposition, viz. that 
the subjects presented to view in the third chapter of Peter’s second 
epistle, are particularly treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
and consequently, that Peter must have referred to these subjects, 
and to that epistle. The sum of the third chapter of Peter is, ‘ That 
the heavens and the earth are perishable; that they will be destroyed 
by fire; that the delay to destroy the ungodly must not be imputed 
to slackness on the part of the Lord, who puts off this catastrophe on 
account of his long-suffering towards men; and that the time when 
they shall be dissolved by fire, will come speedily, and unexpectedly, 
and then the heavens and the earth will be destroyed, and a new 
heaven and a new earth created.’ Such is the context. Then follows 
the exhortation ; ‘* Beloved, keep yourselves unspotted and blameless ; 
and regard the delay of your Lord’s coming as a favour; even as our 
beloved brother, Paul, has written to you,’ &c. Now where has Paul 
written any thing respecting the dissolution of the material elements 
of the universe by fire, and the creating of new heavens and a new 
earth instead of them? I do not find this subject treated of in the 
epistle to the Hebrews; nor is it touched upon in all the epistles of 
Paul; it is only adverted to in some of them. 

It is then, thirdly, the exhortation in the immediate context, to keep 
themselves unspotted and blameless, in view of ther Lord’s coming, 
which Peter means to say had been urged by Paul on the persons whom 
he addressed, as well as by himself. This is the plain grammatical 
construction ; and it is the only one which will bear examination, by 
comparing it with the contents of Paul’s epistles. 

But exhortation of such a nature is far from being contained only in 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 19 


the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, 
the first to the Thessalonians, the first to Timothy, and that to Titus, 
contain direct exhortations of this sort, and the other epistles of Paul, 
repeated intimations of the same nature. If the argument is good, then, 
to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, 
because it contains such sentiments and exhortations ; the same argu- 
ment might prove that any of the other epistles of Paul were written 
to the same church, because they contain the like sentiments. 

But there is one of the churches in Asia Minor to which Peter wrote, 
namely, that of Galatia, to which a letter of Paul now extant is ad- 
dressed. May not this be the very epistle to which Peter adverts, and 
not the epistle to the Hebrews? In chapter vi. 7—9, is a passage of 
warning and exhortation, grounded on the doctrine of future retribution. 
This may be the very passage to which Peter adverts ; or if any should 
think it too general to satisfy the reference which he makes, then the 
exhortation may have been in a letter now lost. That some of Paul’s 
letters are lost, is pretty certain, from 1 Cor. v. 9—11. See also Phil. 
ii. 1. Evidently one of John’s epistles is lost. ‘I wrote to the 
church,” says he, in his second epistle, verse 9, ‘‘ but Diotrephes, who 
loves pre-eminence, did not receive us.”” We have no remains of the 
epistle to which he here adverts. The letter of Paul, which Peter 
mentions, may have shared the same fate. At most, the epistle to the 
Hebrews, even supposing it to be proved that Paul wrote it, has no 

‘special claim to be considered as the one adverted to by Peter, 

If then it cannot be shown (as I am fully persuaded it cannot) that 
Peter, in the passage under consideration, adverts to the epistle to the 
Hebrews, it cannot, of course, be shown from Peter’s testimony, that 
Paul wrote this epistle. This argument has, indeed, been often and 
strongly urged, in order to establish this point, by modern and late 
critics; but it will not abide the test of examination. ‘The ancient 
church, it is well known, never brought it forward to support the opinion 
that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Storr him- 
self, who urges it very strongly, concedes that it was never employed 
by the Christian fathers. It does not follow, indeed, that it has no 
validity, because it was not employed by them. But it would seem, at 
least, that the proof to be derived from it is not so obvious, nor so 
conclusive, as some modern critics have deemed it. 

(8.) Storr adduces ‘ the special circumstances of the churches 
addressed in the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews, as a 

c2 


20 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


ground for the opinion, that both epistles were directed to the church 
in Galatia. The Galatians,” says he, ‘‘ had for a Jong time been Chris- 
tians; so had the Hebrews. The Galatians were persecuted and misled 
by false teachers, and were in danger of defection from Christianity ; so 
were the Hebrews.” 

Now, so far from finding evidence of sameness, in the representations 
of the two epistles, respecting these circumstances, I find proof of dis- 
similarity so great as to exclude all hope of supporting the opinion of 
Storr, and to show that the admission of it would do great violence to 
the laws of probability. To the Galatians Paul says, ‘‘I marvel that 
ye are so soon removed from him who called you to the grace of Christ, 
unto another gospel,” Gal. i. 6. To the Hebrews he says, ‘‘ When for 
the time [i. e. plainly the long time since they professed Christianity ] 
ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again to be taught the first 
elements of religion,” Heb. v. 12. And again, “Call to mind the 
Sormer days in which, when ye were enlightened, ye endured a great 
fight of afflictions,” x. 32. And again, the writer calls on them to 
«remember the example of their former teachers, who were deceased,” 
RU 7 

Then as to persecution, the Hebrews had suffered the loss of their 
property by it, x. 34; but there is no intimation of this in respect to the 
Galatians. Indeed, there is no proof, that out of Palestine persecution 
was such, in the apostolic age, (one or two instances only excepted,) 
as to deprive men of either property or life. The Roman magistracy 
did not permit this, either out of Palestine or in it, so long as they were 
in authority. This is evident from several passages of history in the 
Acts; e. g. Acts xviii. 12. 17, xix. 35—40. Acts xvi. xxvi. Then 
there is a ereat difference between the kind of persecution animadverted 
upon in the epistle to the Galatians, and in that to the Hebrews. In 
the former, Christians are addressed as in danger, from their pressure, 
of incorporating Judaism with Christianity, and making the continued 
profession of it essential to salvation ; in the latter, they are every where 
addressed, as in danger of a final and total renunciation of the Christian 
religion. In the one, they are dehorted from superadding the Jewish 
ceremonies to Christianity; in the other, from utterly abandoning the 
Christian religion. 

But further ; Paul says, in Gal. vi. 11, ‘¢ Ye see how Laror a letter 
I have written to you with my own hand.” Yet this epistle consists of 
only six chapters of a moderate length. How then could Paul say to 


TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 2] 


a part of the same church, in a letter accompanying this, “ 1 beseech 
you, brethren, to bear with a word of exhortation from me, for I have 
written unto you dua Bpaxéwy IN A FEW WORDS,” or briefly, Heb. xiii. 22. 
Yet this brief epistle is more than twice as long as the large letter 
which accompanied it. Could Paul so forget himself, on such an occa- 
sion as this ? 

Again, Paul often adverts, in his epistle to the Galatians, to the fact 
that he was the first who taught them the doctrines of Christianity. Yet 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is not a word of this; but, plainly, 
the whole manner of the letter, and specially the manner in which he 
speaks of the teachers of those whom he addresses, implies that he had 
not himself planted the church to which his letter was directed. 

But what determines the question beyond all hope of supporting the 
views of Storr, is, that in the epistle to the Galatians, their teachers 
are animadverted upon with great severity, on account of their improper 
conduct and erroneous doctrines. They are represented as perverting 
the gospel of Christ; as having an erroneous zeal for selfish purposes, 
iv. 17, v. 13; and the apostle even proceeds so far as to express a wish 
that they might be cut off from the church, vy. 12. But how totally 
different is the character given of teachers, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews! ‘‘ Obey your teachers, and be subject to them; for they 


”? 


watch over your souls, as they who must give an account ;” i. e. they 
are altogether worthy of your confidence and obedience, xiii. 17. 
And at the close of the letter, he sends his affectionate salutations to 
them, xii. 24. 

These considerations seem to remove all probability, and ever possi- 
bility, that the epistle to the Hebrews was, as Storr maintains, written 
at the same time and place as the epistle to the Galatians, and that it 
was also directed to the same church. 

The excellent character and distinguished acuteness of Storr, entitle 
almost any opinion which he has seriously defended, to examination ; 
but I cannot resist the impression, that he has utterly failed in defending 
the sentiment which has now been examined. 

I have, throughout this investigation, proceeded on the supposition 
that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; which Storr fully believed, 
and the belief of which is necessary, in order that one may adopt the 
sentiment which he has maintained in respect to its destination. Whe- 
ther there is sufficient reason to believe that Paul was the author of the 
epistle, will be a subject of discussion in a subsequent part of this 


. 


22 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED 


Introduction. In the mean time, I shall concede this point, (while 
examining the question relative to its destination,) to all the writers who 
have assumed it, in supporting their respective opinions. Such is the 
case with all those, whose various opinions relative to the destination of 


our epistle, still remain to be examined. 
§ 6. Was the epistle directed to the church at Thessalonica ? 


The character which has just been given of Storr, will also apply, in 
respect to some of its prominent traits, to Noesselt, late professor of 
Thelogy at Halle, who has maintained, in an essay devoted to this pur- 
pose,* that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the churches in 
Macedonia, or rather to the church at Thessalonica. Semler had done 
this before him; but on somewhat different grounds, and with less 
plausible reasons. On this account, I shall now, without particularly 
adverting to the efforts of Semler, proceed to examine the more ably 
supported opinion of Noesselt. 

The general principle, to which Noesselt makes an appeal in his argu- 
ment, is, in itself, considered correct. He endeavours to show, that 
“‘there are circumstances mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, in 
Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonian church, and in the life of this apostle, 
which afford a very striking agreement ; so striking as to render it alto- 
gether probable, that Paul must have directed to this church, the epistle 
which is now inscribed, To the Hebrews; and that he must have written 
it during his abode of eighteen months at Corinth, as recorded in Acts 
xvii.” Let us examine these circumstances. 

(1.) “ When Paul visited Corinth for the first time, he found Priscilla 
and Aquila there, who had recently fled from Italy, on account of the 
decree of Claudius, which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts xviii. 
1,2. At the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, he says, ‘ They of 


’ 


Italy salute you ;’ meaning Priscilla and Aquila. Here then is a cir- 
cumstance in the epistle to the Hebrews, which accords with the cirecum- 
stances of Paul, during his first visit to Corinth.” 

But, as I have before remarked, (p. 11,) Paul was in company with 
these Italians at other places besides Corinth. From some of these 
other places, then, he might have written this salutation. Besides, is 
there any probability, (as I have before asked,) that two strangers, who 
had recently (xposparwe) come from a city so distant as Rome, should 


* Contained in his Opuscula. 


TO THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA ? 23 


be so well known to the Thessalonians in the extreme north-eastern 
part of Greece, that they need not even be named, but simply called 
ot ad rij¢ IraXiac, in @ greeting or salutation? And particularly so, as 
neither of them were officers m the church, or public teachers. In all 
othe: cases, as has been already shown, Paul expressly names these 
persons, when he adverts to them. Why should he depart here from his 
usual custom ? 

(2.) ‘« Paul says, at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, that 
Timothy was droAedvpevor, sent away; and Paul had sent Timothy from 
Berea to Thessalonica, while Paul himself was at Athens, a little before 
he came to Corinth: comp. Acts xvii. 13—16. Here then is a concur- 
rence of circumstances, which favours the opinion that the epistle to 
the Hebrews was written by Paul at Corinth, and directed to the 
Thessalonians.” 

To understand the nature of this argument, and the reply which I 
have to make, it is necessary to advert, for a moment, to the history of 
Paul’s journeys at the time now under consideration. Paul, in company 
with Silas and Timothy, first preached the gospel at Thessalonica, where 
a church was formed ; but, bemg vehemently opposed by some of the 
Jews, they went to Berea, a neighbouring city, Acts xvii. 10. Thither 
the persecuting Jews of Thessalonica followed them ; in consequence of 
which, Paul, leaving Silas and Timothy there, withdrew to Athens. 
Here he resided a short time, and then went on his first visit to Corinth, 
Acts xvii. 1—15, xvii. 1. At this last place, he staid eighteen months, 
Acts xviii. 11. Now Noesselt supposes, that before Paul left Athens, he 
sent Timothy (who was still at Berea, Acts xvii. 10. 14) back to Thes- 
salonica, in order to make inquiries respecting the state of the church 
there ; and that this is the meaning of that passage at the close of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, Ye know, (as he would translate it,) that our 
brother Timothy is sent away. 

But as there is nothing of all this in the history which Luke has given 
of Paul and Timothy, Acts xvii, and as the whole must therefore be 
founded on conjecture, it might be sufficient, on the other hand, to 
conjecture that Paul did not send Timothy from Berea to Thessalonica, 
as Noesselt supposes. 

However, respect for so excellent a critic as Noesselt, would rather 
demand some argument, to show that this conjecture cannot be well 
founded. I would observe, then, that in order to render his position 
probable, he assumes as a fact, that the epistle to the Hebrews was writ- 


24 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED 


ten before the epistles to the Thessalonians ; a supposition not capable 
of being rendered probable, much less of being proved. 

It will be admitted, that there is not a word in our present first epistle 
to the Thessalonians, respecting any previous letter addressed to them ; 
a circumstance not to be imagined, provided the apostle had written such 
a laboured epistle to them as that to the Hebrews is, and on such an 
important question. Besides, it appears altogether probable from Acts 
xviii. 1—6, that Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth soon after Paul 
had gone there ; so that the absence of Timothy, supposed by Noesselt 
to have taken place at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written, cannot be rendered at all probable, from this part of Paul’s 
history; for it cannot be thought probable, that such an epistle as that 
to the Hebrews would be written by Paul zmmediately after his arrival 
at Corinth, amidst all the agitation and dispute and hazard cccasioned 
by his first preaching there. But even conceding that this might have 
been done, is it probable that Paul, who (according to Noesselt) had 
just before, while at Athens, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, and who 
knew that he was now there, should gravely write to the Thessalonians, 
Ye know that our brother Timothy is sent away; when this same 
Timothy, in propria persona, was present with the very church to whom 
this was written? 

(3.) In Heb. x. 34. Paul says, Ye had compassion on my bonds ; 
or, according to another reading, of equal authority, Ye had compassion 
on those who were bound, i.e. the prisoners. This refers to Paul’s 
imprisonment, as related in Acts xvi. 23—40; and to the sympathy 
which the Thessalonians evinced for him in these circumstances.” 

But this imprisonment was at Philippi, before Paul had visited Thes- 
salonica, and before the Thessalonians could know that he was in their 
region, except by report. This imprisonment lasted but a few hours; 
it ended in a most triumphant deliverance, by the interposition of Divine 
power, and in the shame and mortification of the magistracy who had 
ordered it. The whole occurrence, instead of demanding compassionate 
sympathy, was a matter of tréwmph and congratulation. Or, if other- 
wise, it was not an affliction in respect to which the Thessalonians could 
compassionate Paul as they could not know of its having happened, 
until it was past. 

(4.) ‘“‘The Hebrews are praised for their liberality; and so are the 
Thessalonians.” 

To which I reply, So are other churches. Does it follow, because 


TO THE CHUKCH AT THESSALONICA ? 25 


they exhibited this trait of character which was common aniong Christians 
in the apostolic age, that the Thessalonian church must have been the 
same which is thus recommended in the epistle to the Hebrews ? 

(5.) “The persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews was addressed, 
had suffered persecution, Heb. x. 32, xu. 4; which was also the case 
with the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii. 14—16, 2 Thess. i. 11.” 

So had many other churches. But neither at Thessalonica, nor 
scarcely any where else, except in Palestine, do we know of a persecu- 
tion, at this period, which involved the loss of property and the hazard 
of liberty and life. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of their being 
despoiled of their property, x. 34; a circumstance not to be found in 
the account of the persecution at Thessalonica, and one which makes 
directly against the supposition of Noesselt. 

(6.) ‘‘ The Thessalonians were in danger of defection from the faith, 
so that Paul was obliged to send Timothy to confirm them, 1 Thess. iii. 
2,3; and the same danger is every where adverted to, in the epistle to 
the Hebrews.” 

This argument is built on an erroneous exegesis. That Timothy made 
a visit to confirm the Thessalonians, does not surely imply that they 
were in special danger of apostacy. When Paul is said to have gone 
through Asia Minor confirming the churches, Acts xv. 36—41, xvi. 4—6, 
xviii. 23, are we to draw the inference that all the churches there were 
in the same danger of apostacy as the persons to whom the epistle to 
the Hebrews is addressed? If not, this argument of Noesselt has no 
force to establish the opinion which he advocates. 

(7.) ‘* There is a great similarity between the epistle to the Hebrews 
and the epistle to the Thessalonians.” 

So there is, also, between the epistle to the Hebrews and all the 
epistles of Paul. This argument, then, proves too much. It may serve 
to show that Paul probably wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; but it can 
have no important influence on the question, To whom did he write this 
epistle ? 

Most of the similarities, moreover, which are produced by Noesselt, 
are similarities of a general nature in respect to sentiments of piety and 
morality. Must there not be a similarity, of course, in these respects, 
in all the epistles of Paul, provided he always taught the same doctrines 
of Christianity ? 

But the dissimilarities between the epistles to the Thessalonians and 
the Hebrews, Noesselt has not proceeded to develop. Yet there are 


26 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


some; and some so striking, as to render the supposition which he 
defends, altogether improbable. The Hebrews addressed in our epistle, 
had been for a long time Christians; but if Noesselt’s supposition be 
true, they had been so only a few months, at most, when Paul wrote his 
first epistle to them; for Paul had only made a rapid journey from 
Thessalonica to Athens, and thence to Corinth; and soon after his 
arrival there, and (as Noesselt thinks) before Timothy had come to him, 
he wrote the epistle in question. 

I may add, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews nowhere adverts 
to his having first planted Christianity among them. But Paul, in his 
epistle to the Thessalonians, very frequently adverts to this circumstance. 

Further, the epistle to the Hebrews is directed to a church almost 
wholly (if not altogether) Jewish ; while it is plain, from Acts xvii. 4, 5, 
that only a few Jews had early joined the Thessalonian church ; and 
plainer still, that this church was principally made up of Gentiles, from 
Paul’s first epistle to them, 1.9, where he says, ‘“‘ Ye have turned from 
edols, to serve the living God.”” Now, circumstances so widely diverse 
and opposite, cannot be predicated of the same church, while they have 
respect only to an interval of time, which, at the most, cannot exceed 
the eighteen months that Paul abode at Corinth. 

Finally, Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians, throughout, are 
filled with commendations of the Thessalonian church, for their firmness 
and stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. Not a word of their Jewish 
prejudices. Not a reference to the imminent danger of apostacy, which 
is every where developed in the epistle to the Hebrews. Noesselt 
accounts for this, by the supposition, that Paul’s first epistle to them, viz. 
that to the Hebrews, (as he supposes,) had produced a thorough reforma- 
tion among them. But when Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians 
had effected a reformation, in respect to various particulars of far less 
importance than those treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, how does 
the apostle fill his second letter with commendations, which have a 
direct reference to his former admonitions? Could it be otherwise 
here, if the epistle to the Hebrews had been written before our present 
epistles to the Thessalonians, and produced such an effect as Noesselt 
supposes ? 5 

On the whole, then, the supposition of Noesselt must be abandoned ; 
not only because it is not well supported, but because it involves dif- 
ficulties and improbabilities so great as to render it altogether tcre- 
dible. 


TO HEBREWS IN ASIA MINOR? 27 
§ 7. Was it directed to Hebrews, who were sqjourners in Asia Minor? 


Bolten (who has distinguished himself, m a peculiar manner, by a 
translation of the New Testament, with constant reference to the Syriac 
or Syro-Chaldaic language, in which he supposes many of the original 
documents must have been composed,) has advanced the opinion, that 
the Hebrews, addressed in our epistle, were those who had fled from 
Palestine, about A.D. 60, on account of the persecutions there, and 
were scattered abroad Asia Minor. To this he thinks the et carapuyorrec 
in vi. 18, refers; as also the passage in xii. 14, which speaks of their 
having no abiding city. He finds parallels of such a meaning, in 3 John 
verses 5 and 7, where strangers are mentioned, and those who have gone 
abroad (2m 0ov) for his (Christ’s) name’s sake; in 1 Pet. i. 1, where 
sojourners of the dispersion are mentioned; and in Jamesi. 1, where 
the o! év rh duasropa are addressed. 

I am unable, however, to find any history of a persecution in Pales- 
tine, at the period which he mentions, or any account of a dispersion of 
Jewish Christians abroad, at that period. As to the texts which he 
cites, in favour of his supposition, they will not bear the construction 
which he has put upon them. We who have fled, Hebrews vi. 18, is 
inseparably connected with the clause which follows, viz. to lay hold on 
the hope set before us, i.e. in the gospel. Besides, the writer does not 
say you who have fled, but we, i.e. Christians. So also in xii. 14, itis we 
(viz. Christians) who have no abiding city, i.e. no permanent place of 
happiness in the present world. The passage in 3 John verses 5, 7, pro- 
bably refers to Gentile Christians, who became exiles; and those in 
James and Peter have respect merely to Jews who dived in foreign 
countries, in distinction from those who lived in Palestine. 

Besides, how could the apostle address wandering fugitives, scattered 
over Asia Minor, and destitute of a home, as ina condition to bestow cha- 
rity? xiii. 1,2. 16. How could he speak of them as having stated teachers ? 
xiii. 17,24. How could he expect his letter to reach them; or promise 
them a visit with Timothy, xiii.23, in case he should speedily return ? 

Respectable as the critic is who has advanced this opinion, it seems to 
be quite destitute of probability, and entitled to but little consideration. 


§ 8. Was the epistle addressed to the church at Corinth? 


Michael Weber, who has distinguished himself in some respects as a 
critical writer on the canon of the New Testament, has advanced, and 


28 § 8. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


endeavoured to support the opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written to the church at Corinth. He labours, in the first place, to show 
that Paul wrote no less than five letters to the Corinthians. The first 
was one which has been lost, and which Paul mentions in our present 
1 Cor. v. 9—13. The second and third were our first to the Corinthians, 
and so much of the second as includes chapters 1.—1ix., with the two last 
verses of the epistle ; the fourth, our present epistle to the Hebrews; and 
the fifth, the remainder of the second epistle to the Corinthians; all 
which, he thinks, were written in the order now suggested. 

Proceeding on the ground of such an arrangement of Paul’s letters, he 
endeavours to support his opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written to the Corinthians, by arguments which I shall now examine. 

(8.) “ The Hebrews became Christians at an early period, and so did 
the Corinthians ; the Hebrews were Judaizing Christians, and so were 
the Cormthians. An agreement in these respects renders it probable, 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was sent to the church at Corinth.” 

But Paul did not visit Corinth until A.D. 51 or 52, after he had 
repeatedly traversed the various countries of Asia Minor, and founded 
several churches in Macedonia. It cannot, therefore, be called an early 
period, at which the Corinthians were converted. Paul established few, 
if any, new churches, after the establishment of this at Corinth; at least, 
history does not give us any account of them. 

In respect to the Corinthians being Judaizing Christians, the proof is 
altogether wanting. The apostle has taken no notice of any contest or 
question of this nature among them. He has indeed, in 2 Cor. iii. 
6— 18, drawn a parallel between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations ; 
but it is of a general nature, and touches none of the points usually con- 
tested by Judaizing Christians. In 2 Cor. xi. 13—23, to which Weber 
appeals for proof of his assertion, it is plain, that some Judaizing teacher 
(or teachers) is adverted to by Paul; whose conduct he describes in 
terms which convey very strong disapprobation. But this, instead of 
aiding to establish the position of Weber, seems absolutely to overthrow 
it; for im the epistle to the Hebrews, the teachers (as we have already 
had occasion to remark, p. 21,) are commended, as being altogether 
worthy of confidence and obedience, Heb. xii. 17. 24. | We have 
already seen, moreover, that the church at Corinth consisted, at first, of but 
few Jews; as is plain from the history of Paul’s planting it, Acts xviii. 

(2.) ‘“ There is a most striking resemblance between the epistle to the 
Hebrews and the epistle to the Corinthians.” 


TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH ? 29 


This, Weber labours to establish, by a comparison of the methods in 
which each quotes the Old Testament ; of the draé Neydpeva ; and of 
the similitudes employed. 

That there is a similarity, I should readily concede. But resemblance, 
and even striking resemblance, is not confined merely to the epistles 
addressed to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews. Storr finds it between 
the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews; Noesselt, between 
the epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Hebrews; and it may be 
easily shown, (as it will be hereafter,) that the epistle to the Hebrews has 
a striking resemblance to all the epistles of Paul, in a variety of respects. 
Why should we, or how can we, limit this to the epistles addressed to 
the Corinthians ? 

But in various respects, in which Weber has undertaken to make out 
a likeness between the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle to the 
Corinthians, it seems to me that he has entirely failed. In the epistle 
to the Hebrews, repeated reference is made to personal sufferings and 
loss of property, through persecution, Heb. x. 33, 34, xu. 4; but in the 
epistle to the Corinthians, we discover no traces of such persecution ; 
nor does the history of the church at Corinth give us any knowledge 
of persecution having early prevailed there. At all events, when our 
present first epistle to the Corinthians was written, it is clear that no 
such event had taken place at Corinth ; for Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 13, no 
trial hath befallen you but such as is common tomen. Now, as the epistle 
to the Hebrews speaks of the great fight of afflictions, x. 33, 34, which 
they endured, when they were first enlightened, here is an absolute con- 
tradiction of Weber’s supposition, instead of a confirmation of it. 

(3.) “The warnings, exhortations, and commendations for charity 
bestowed, are alike in the epistles to the Corinthians and to the 
Hebrews.” 

But the same resemblances which Weber finds between these epistles, 
Noesselt finds between the epistles to the Thessalonians and to the 
Hebrews. Such resemblances may be found, also, in other epistles. 
But they are of a nature too general to afford any evidence of weight 
in such a question as the one before us. Does not every Christian 
church need warning, reproof, consolation? And is not every one that 
is charitable, entitled to commendation? It is not, therefore, from a 
comparison of general expressions of this nature, that the sameness of 
churches addressed can be proved. There must be something particular, 
local, and sui generis, to make such proof valid. 


30 § 8. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


(4.) The greeting at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, “Aowa- 
Lovrat tpac ot ad rig “Iradiac, Weber understands (like the critics 
whom I have already examined) as referring to Priscilla and Aquila ; 
and compares it with the greeting from the same persons, in 1 Cor. 
xvi. 19. 

But in the latter place they are expressly named, so that there is a 
striking dissimilitude, instead of resemblance, in the manner of the 
salutation. 

(5.) He further compares several ideas in the epistle to the Corinthians 
and the epistle to the Hebrews; such as warnings taken from the 
example of ancient Israel, 1 Cor. x. 1—12, and Heb. ii. 16—18; the 
doctrine that God chastises his children for their good, 1 Cor. xi. 32, 
and Heb. xii. 5—11; and some other things, about which similar views 
in both epistles are expressed. 

The words, however, which are employed in these two cases, are, for 
the most part, quite diverse. And even if they were not, could Paul 
write on such subjects to no more than one church? And must that 
church be only at Corinth ? 

(6.) ‘* But, the epistle to the Hebrews is called A\éyorv zapakhijaews 5 
and also in 2 Cor. vi. 1, Paul says, tapaxadodper.” 

True; but the same Paul repeatedly says wapacadéw in his epistles 
to the Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and elsewhere. 
Was the epistle to the Hebrews written to these churches, because wapa- 
xahéw is a word common to it and to the epistles directed to them ? 

(7.) “In 1 Cor. iv. 18, 19, xvi. 2—7, the apostle has expressed his 
desire or determination to pay the Corinthians a visit; and at the close 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, the same determination is expressed, 
Heb. xii. 23.” 

But were there no other churches which the apostle desired or deter- 
mined to visit, besides that at Corinth? And could he express the 
desire or determination to visit no other? Even if all this should be 
admitted, the determination to pay a visit, as expressed in our first 
epistle to the Corinthians, was abandoned when he wrote the second, 
i. 15 seq ; which, according to Weber’s own arrangement, was written 
before our epistle to the Hebrews. 

(8.) “From 1 Cor. xvi. 10, it appears, that Timothy, when this letter 
was written, was absent from Paul; and in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
xii. 23, he is said to be sent away (ao\eAvpevoy.) Here again is a 
similarity of circumstauces.” 


TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH 2? 31 


Granted ; but was not Timothy constantly employed in this manner, 
on errands of Pau! to the churches ? Was he absent only once? And 
could Paul tell no other church of his absence, but that of Corinth ? 
Besides, our second epistle to the Corinthians, (written, according to 
Weber himself, before our epistle to the Hebrews,) makes it clear that 
Timothy had returned ; for he is joined with Paul in the salutation at 
the beginning of the epistle, 2 Cor. i. 1. 

(9.) ‘* Since the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, xiii. 22, I 
have written to you dua Bpaxéwy, briefly, this refers to our second epistle 
to the Corinthians, [which, according to Weber, consisted of the first 
nine chapters ;] and the meaning of this phrase is, ‘ My last epistle to 
you (viz. the second epistle to the Corinthians) was short ;’ implying, at 
the same time, that the present one is longer or more copious.” 

But such an explanation the text will not bear. ‘‘I beseech you, 
brethren,” says the writer, ‘‘ bear with my address to you, because (or, 
since) I have written briefly ;” he evidently means, briefly in comparison 
with the importance of the subject and the occasion; briefly in comparison 
with the copiousness which his interested feelings for them and the cause 


ba 


of truth would have prompted. ‘‘ I have written briefly,” is an apology 
for the letter to the Hebrews which the writer was then concluding ; and, 
not for a former one to the church at Corinth. The incongruity of a 
supposition, such as Weber makes, is manifest from the meaning of the 
very language which he quotes to support it. For how could the apostle 
say that he had written drzefly, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, 
and imply that he had written copiously in the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
when, even abridged as Weber makes the former, it would be almost 
as long as the latter ? 

We have seen the inconclusive nature of Weber’s arguments, and 
their insufficiency to establish his opinion. It may now be observed, in 
addition, that the subjects treated of in the epistle to the Corinthians, 
and in that to the Hebrews, are widely different, in general, and quite 
dissimilar. Nota word in the epistle to the Hebrews of internal disor- 
der, tumult, and parties in the church ; no precepts about separation of 
husband and wife ; none concerning meats offered to idols ; none about 
the abuse of spiritual gifts ; no discussion about the resurrection of the 
body ; nothing about the denial of Paul’s authority; which, with 
various matters relating to decorum, constitute the principal subjects dis- 
cussed in our present epistles to the Corinthians. On the other hand, 
in the epistles to the Corinthians there is nothing about apostacy ; 


32 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


nothing relative to persecution ; nothing in commendation of their 
teachers ; no apparent apprehension expressed respecting a Judaizing 
spirit in the church. If the epistles to the Corinthians have resemblances 
in expression and doctrine to the epistle to the Hebrews, (as all Paul’s 
epistles certainly have a resemblance to it,) are they not still so diverse 
as to the matters treated of, and as to the circumstances of the parties 
addressed, as to render hopeless all attempts to show that our present 
epistles to the Hebrews and to the Corinthians were addressed to one 
and the same church ? 


§ 9. Was the Epistle sent to Spain or to Rome ? 


Ludwig has conjectured, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written 
to a church in Spain; and Wetstein, that it was written to the church 
at Rome. But these conjectures are altogether unsupported by the 
authors of them, and therefore need not delay our present investigation. 
We have the same liberty to conjecture, that it was written to some other 
place; and the argument (if it be one) would be equally good. 


§ 10. Was it written to the church in Palestine ? 


I have examined the most specious opinions which modern criticism 
has offered, in order to show that the epistle to the Hebrews was not 
directed to the church in Palestine, but to some church abroad. In 
ancient times, so far as I have been able to discover, there was but one 
opinion on this subject; and this has been adopted and defended by a 
majority of distinguished critics, in modern and recent times. This 
opinion is, that THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE HEBREW CHURCH 
or PALESTINE. We come now to examine whether there is satisfactory 
evidence, that this opinion is well founded. 

Many arguments have been employed to establish this supposition, 
which appear to be incapable of bearing the test of examination. Lard- 
ner and Michaelis, who in many respects were able critics, have brought 
together a number of such arguments. Regard for the opinions of such 
men, seems to render it necessary to subject these arguments to a brief 
review. 

(a) Lardner adduces Heb. i. 2. God—hath in these last days spoken 

unto us by his Son; which, he thinks, must ‘icsignate those whom Christ 
versonally addressed, i. e. the Jews. 

Bnt although it may have such a meaning, it is equally plain that it 
may have a different one, viz. spoken unto Christians, or to men in 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? 33 


general. Thus the word us is in other places employed ; e. g. Lukei. 1. 
The things fully credited by Us, 1. e. by Christians. 

(b) ‘‘ Heb. iv. 2. Unto us ts the gospel preached, as well as unto 
them.” 

To this passage the remarks just made will apply, with the same force 
as to Heb. i. 2. 

(c) ‘* Heb. ii. 1—4. How shall we escape if we neglect so great 
salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was 
confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them wit- 
ness by signs and wonders, &c. Now Palestine was the place where 
miracles were performed.” 

But miracles were also performed out of Palestine, by those who had 
heard Christ, as well as in it. And how then can it be a proof, that 
those addressed in the passage under examination belonged exclusively 
to Palestine? The meaning is, (or at least may be,) that Christianity 
was confirmed to the men of that age, by the miracles which were 
wrought by the immediate disciples of Christ. This sentiment, of course 
has nothing necessarily Jocal attached to it. 

(d) ‘* Those addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews were wel. 
acquainted with the sufferings of Christ; as the Christians of Judea 
imush nave been, 1. 3,0. 9, 18: v. 7, 8..ix. 14: 28, x. 12a aKa 3 
ani, 12.” 

And so were all to whom the apostles preached. Christ crucified was 
the grand theme, the prominent subject, of apostolic preaching, 1 Cor. 
i. 2. Gal. vi. 14. 

(e) “ Heb. v. 12. But when for the time ye ought to be teachers of 
others, ye have need to learn the first principles ; which most suitably 
applies to Christians in Judea, to whom the gospel was first preached.” 

But if the epistle to the Hebrews was written after A. D. 60, (as is 
altogether probable, and as Lardner himself supposes,) then the same 
thing might be said to many other churches out of Palestine, who were 
among the early converts. 

(f) “* What is said of apostates, in ch. vi. 4—6, and x. 26—29, is 
peculiarly applicable to apostates in Judea.” 

But this may be very properly applied, also, to apostates elsewhere, in 
any other churches where the gospel had been fully preached. 

(g) Heb. xiii. 13, 14. Let us therefore go forth to him [viz. Jesus] 
without the camp, bearing his reproach; for here we have no per- 
manent city, but we seek one which is to come. This, Lardner and 

D 


34 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


Michaelis both suppose, was addressed to Christians in Jerusalem, 
warning them to flee from that city, because the destruction of it would 
speedily take place. 

But it seems quite plain to me, that this passage is merely an exhorta- 
tion to self-denial, and to patient endurance of suffering on account of 
Christ, and after his example, couched in figurative language, and appli- 
cable to Christians in general of that or any other time or place. 

(h) To these arguments, Michaelis has added, Heb. x. 25—37. Ex- 
horting one another ; and this so much the more, as ye see the day draw- 
ing near.—Yet a very little time, and he who is coming will come, and 
will not delay. This, Michaelis thinks, is a warning to Christians in 
Jerusalem, that the destruction of the city was near at hand. 

The obvious reply is, that the same consideration is addressed by Paul 
to churches and persons abroad; e. g. to the Philippians, iv. 5; to the 
Thessalonians, 1 Thess. v. 2—6, also v. 23; to Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15; 
and by the apostle James, v. 8, when writing to the twelve tribes dis- 
persed abroad. How can such a warning, then, (admitting that the 
interpretation of it by Michaelis is correct,) be considered as determining 
the locality of the epistle? The fall of Jerusalem surely would not 
endanger the personal safety of those who lived in Macedonia, and other 
places abroad. 

(i) Heb. xiii. 9. It is good that the heart should be confirmed by 
grace, not by meats; for those who are conversant with them are not 
profited. This must apply specially to the Jews of Palestine.” 

But were there not Christian Jews, in other places, superstitiously 
attached to doctrines concerning distinctions of meats and drinks? 
Were not such to be found at Rome, in Galatia, at Colosse? If so, 
how can this text apply exclusively to Jews in Palestine ? 

On such arguments, then, dependence cannot well be placed, in order 
to establish the opinion which Michaelis and Lardner defend. It can- 
not be denied, indeed, that a peculiar significancy would be attached to 
several of the passages that have now been examined, provided it could 
first be shown that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to 
Jews in Palestine. But it must be conceded, that these passages (in 
themselves considered) are not sufficiently discriminating, to determine 
the question whether it was so directed. If no other than such argu- 
ments can be adduced, then must we abandon the idea of being able to 
offer such proof as will satisfy a critical inquirer, that the epistle to the 
Hebrews was directed to the Hebrews of*Palestine. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 35 


That such, however, was the first orzgénal direction, I am inclined to 
believe; and to this belief the following considerations have led me. 

(1.) The inscription to this epistle most naturally leads to this sup- 
position, and helps to strengthen it. 

I am willing to concede the point here, (for I think it may be shown to 
the satisfaction of every one who is well acquainted with the principles 
of critical inquiry,) that this inscription is not @ manu auctoris. Such 
is not the manner of the epistles. They contain within themselves the 
direction which the writer gave them. Thus, Rom.i 1—7, “ Paul an 
apostle—to the church at Rome: 1Cor.i. 1, 2. Paul an apostle—to the 
church of God at Corinth: Eph. i. 1, Paul an apostle—to the saints at 
Ephesus: James i. 1, James a servant of God, to the twelve tribes in 
dispersion: 1 Pet.i.1, Peter an apostle, to the sojourners in dispersion ; 
2 John v. 1, The elder, to the elect lady: Jude ver. 1, Jude a servant of 
Jesus Christ—to those who are sanctified :’’ and so of other epistles. 
Moreover, there are reasons why the titles of the sacred books in general, 
throughout the Old and New Testaments, should not be regarded as 
coming from the hand of those who originally composed the books. Some 
of these inscriptions or titles are incongruous with the contents of the 
book, or chapter, to which they are prefixed. But one fact, on which I 
do not remember to have seen any comments made, is very striking. 
None of the New Testament writers, when they quote the Scriptures, 
ever appeal to the names of the Old Testament books. Nothing could 
have been more to their purpose, than to employ these names for the 
sake of guiding their readers, had they been at that time affixed to the 
books. But they have no where employed them. Even when they quote 
the prophets, it is the name of the person who wrote, and not the name 
of a book as such, to which they appeal. 

Such is the universal practice of the New Testament writers; and such 
is that of Clemens Romanus, who wrote during the first century. In 
writing to the Corinthians, he names, indeed, the epistle of Paul to them; 
but how could he do otherwise? But in all the numerous quotations 
which he makes of the other New Testament books, he does not once call 
any of them by name. 

Such facts show satisfactorily, that the present names of Scripture 
books did not then exist; for had they existed, appeal had been made 
to them, for the same purposes, and from the same necessity, as we now 
make it every day. 

Admitting now, that the inscription, 4 mpdc ‘Efpatoug éxaroX)), is not 

D2 


36 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


original, and that it was superadded by some later editor or transcriber 
of this epistle; it is a very natural and pertinent question, Why was 
such a title given to the epistle in question? The obvious answer must 
be, Because the editor or transcriber, who gave it, supposed that the 
epistle was intended for the Hebrews. And whoever the author of the 
title or inscription was, it 1s quite certain that he lived at an early 
period. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, that he gave such a 
title to our epistle, as agreed with the general tradition and common 
opinion of the Christian church at that period. For we find this title, 
not only in all our present Greek manuscripts, (which would not indeed 
settle the question of its very remote antiquity,) but in all the early ver- 
sions, the Syriac, and others; also in the manuscripts of the old Itala, 
and the ante-Hieronymean Latin versions, the Codex Regius and San 
Germanensis only excepted. There is, indeed, a catalogue of canonical 
books from the fragments of an anonymous author, who lived near the 
close of the second century, (published by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. 
tom. lii. p. 854,) in which the epistle to the Hebrews is supposed to be 
called [epistola] apud Alexandrinos. But the whole passage of this 
writer is so obscure, and his ignorance respecting the contents of the 
epistle to the Hebrews so profound, (as will hereafter be shown,) that 
nothing is to be abated, on his account, from the statement which has 
just been exhibited. The fathers of the second century give the same 
title to our epistle which it now has; for it is by this name that Pan- 
tenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen, (with the whole 
series of fathers after them,) make their appeal to it. This shows, 
beyond reasonable doubt, that from whatever source the title arose, it 
arose early, and early became general, or rather universal, in the church, 
wherever the epistle was received. 

But although the fact is certain, in respect to the early origin and 
currency of this title, one question remains, about which there has been 
no small dispute among critics. What is the meaning of the word 
Hebrews? Does this name apply only to the Jews of Palestine who 
spoke the Hebrew language? Or is it equally applicable to all the 
descendants of the Hebrews, who lived in foreign countries, and adhered 
to the Jewish religion? On this question turns the whole evidence to be 
derived from the title, in respect to the main subject under considera- 
tion. If the first be true, then does it show, that soon after the epistle 
was written, the church in general believed it to have been directed to 
the Jews in Palestine, if the second, then it does not at all help to show, 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 37 


whether the early church held it to be written to the Christian community 
of Hebrews in Palestine, or out of it. Viewed in this light, the question 
as to the meaning of the word Hebrews becomes a matter of no inconsi- 
derable importance, and should therefore be radically investigated. 

The writers of the New Testament may be fairly presumed to have 
used the word Hebrew, according to the prevailing usus loquendi of the 
times when they wrote; and in all probability, too, of the time when the 
title was given to our epistle, which could not be long afterwards. But 
they have uniformly employed it to designate the Palestine Jews, or 
those who had imbibed their opinions and spoke their language. In 
Acts vi. 1, the Palestine Christians are expressly called ‘EGpato, in con- 
tradistinction from the foreign Jews, who are called ‘E\Anvorui: there 
arose a murmuring of the HELLENISTS against the HEBREWS, because 
their widows were neglected in the daily administration. In conformity 
with this passage, (which is fundamental in the question now under con- 
sideration,) the dialect of Palestine is repeatedly called ‘E/paic¢ or 
Epaixdc, in the New Testament ; e.g. Acts xxi. 40, xxiil.2, Luke xxii. 38. 
John v. 2, xix. 13,17. Agreeably to this, ‘EfpatZew means, to speak 
or write Hebrew ; as Josephus says, ra rod Katoapoe dujyyyere ‘ESpatfwy, 
Bell. Jud. vi. 2, i.e. he narrated Cesar’s history in the Hebrew tongue. 
To have a knowledge of the Hebrew language, and to speak it, was 
deemed among the Jews a matter of great importance, or a very valuable 
acquisition, Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2. Hence Paul, when speaking of the 
ground of precedence which he might claim above the false teachers at 
Philippi, says, that he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews, i.e. one of full 
Hebrew descent, and acquainted with the Hebrew language. Although 
he was born at Tarsus, he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel in 
Jerusalem, Phil. iii. 5. To this same fact he seems to appeal again, in 
a similar case, 2 Cor. x1. 22. Are they Hebrews? Soam I. 

With this usus loquendi of the New Testament agree other facts, 
which seem to place the question beyond reasonable doubt, as to what 
the usage of the apostolic age was, in respect to the meaning of the 
word in question. 

The Hebrew Christians of Palestine early possessed a spurious Gospel, 
which long continued to have currency among them. Universal consent 
gave to this Gospel, written in the Syro-Chaldaic or Palestine dialect of 
the time, the name Evayyedwov cad’ ‘EBpaiove; evidently because it was 
used or approved by people of Palestine who spoke the so-called 
Hebrew language, The early fathers, it is well known, drew the con- 


38 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


clusion from the title to our epistle, that it was originally written in the 
Hebrew language. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus asserts that itwas written, 
‘Efpaiote ‘EBpah gwvf, and interpreted by others, Euseb. H. Ecc. 
vi. 14. In the same way, Eusebius declares that it was addressed, 
‘EGpatore dua rij¢ marpiov ywrrnc, to the Hebrews in their native 
tongue, Hist. Ecce. iii. 28; and Jerome says that Paul wrote, ut 
Hebreus, Hebreis, Hebraice, i.e. as a Hebrew, to the Hebrews, in 
the Hebrew language ; Catal. Scriptt. verb. Paulus. 

Now, how could these fathers reason thus, unless they had understood 
the word Hebrews as necessarily meaning, according to the usus loguendi 
of that age, those who spoke the Hebrew language ? 

Bertholdt declares boldly, that not a single example can be found, in 
early times, of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews, 
Einleit. p. 2875. I would express my own conviction in a more guarded 
manner, and say, I have not been able to find any instance where this is 
the case. 

Yet Eichhorn has ventured to assert, that the name Hebrew never has 
any reference to language, but always to religion or origin. His proof 
is, first, a passage from Eusebius’ Hist, Ecc. iil. 4, in which the historian 
asserts, that Peter addressed his epistle, mpdc¢ rove é ‘EBpatwy dvrac év 
étacropG Udvrov. But this implies simply, that those whom Peter 
addressed were descended from the Hebrews, or belonged to those of 
the circumcision. Another passage to which he appeals, is in Philo, 
(de Abrahamo, p. 338 pD. edit. Par.) where he says, that Sarah advised 
Abraham to take as a concubine [Hagar], who by descent was an 
Egyptian, riv re xpoaipnow ‘Eppatay, but by choice a Hebrew; which 
he construes as meaning, who had embraced the religion of the Hebrews. 
But the antithesis here does not admit of this sense. By descent she 
was of the Egyptian nation, but by voluntary choice she attached 
herself to the Hebrew nation, is plainly the meaning of the passage; so 
that it fails altogether in affording ground for the conclusion which 
Eichhorn adduces from it. 

Carpzoff, to whom Eichhorn is indebted for this quotation, has adduced 
several others, to show that the word Hebrew is used to character‘ze the 
religion of the Jews, rather than their language or nation. Exercitt. in 
Heb. Prolog. c. 1. But so far are they from affording satisfaction to 
my mind, that I do not think them worthy the labour of an examination 
in this place. 

The result of this inquiry is, then, that "EGpato, in the inscription to 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 39 


our epistle, means, and, according to the usus loguendi of the age, must 
mean, the Hebrews of Palestine, i. e. Hebrews in a country where the 
Hebrew language was vernacular. 

If I have offered sufficient evidence to establish this, then does the 
title to our epistle go far towards showing what the original destination 
of the epistle was. If an ancient epistle has no direction within itself, 
and contains no unequivocal passages indicative of locality, in what way 
can we ascertain the original direction of it better than by tradition ? 
Do we not appeal in all similar cases to tradition, in order to show when 
and where authors were born, lived, and wrote ? where and when books 
were written? And seldom, indeed, can we trace back tradition, in a 
manner so satisfactory and definite as in the case just considered. 

Thus much for the external testimony, in regard to the opinion that 
Palestine was the place to which our epistle was directed ; the voice of 
antiquity, and the title of the letter, constituting strong presumptive 
evidence that such was the case. But does the internal condition of 
the epistle itself agree with this? And does it furnish no objections, 
which will overbalance the weight of tradition? Something must be said 
relative to these questions, before we can make our ultimate conclusion. 
I proceed then, 

(2.) To examine whether the internal condition of the epistle agrees 
with and confirms the supposition which I am now endeavouring to 
defend. 

The most superficial reader cannot help being impressed, on a slight 
reading of this epistle, with the idea that it is addressed to Jewish con- 
verts. In respect to this, indeed, all critics, ancient and modern, are of 
one opinion. Butaclose examination discloses a peculiarity of appeal, 
in this epistle, to the Mosaic ritual, which can be found no where else in 
the New Testament. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, 
we find, indeed, numerous traces of dispute and difficulty with Jews 
who lived in countries remote from Palestine. But the disputed ques- 
tions turn upon points of circumcision, of meats clean and unclean, 
points which respected the sabbaths, and the holidays that the Jews had 
been accustomed to observe. Concerning the priesthood, the temple, and 
the ritual of sacrifices, we find no questions of difficulty agitated. 

The obvious reason of this seems to be, that but very few of the 
foreign Jews, regularly, or even at all, attended the services of the temple. 
The great body of those who lived in the countries more distant from 


40 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


Palestine, plainly could not attend the feast at Jerusalem three times in 
each year, according to the prescription of Moses. The time and 
expenses necessary to do this, could not be spared. 

This is not matter of mere conjecture. We know that the most numer- 
ous colony of Jews, any where to be found at that period, as well as the 
most learned and rich, was that at Alexandria in Egypt. Hither they 
had been transplanted, about 284 years A. C. by Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
who had overrun Palestine with his army. They were allowed great 
privileges under the reign of this prince; so that many were allured to 
Egypt, in his time, and the number of Jews in that country became quite 
large. Under Ptolemy Philometor, not far from 175 A. C., Onias, son 
of the high-priest Onias at Jerusalem, who had fled to Egypt for safety, 
asked leave of Ptolemy and his queen Cleopatra, to build a temple at 
Leontopolis in that country, which was a town in the prefecturate of 
Heliopolis. This leave he obtained; and there he built a temple, and 
constituted priests and Levites as ministers for its services. In his peti- 
tion for obtaining this liberty, he states, that while on his military expe- 
ditions in the service of the king, he had seen temples used by the Jews 
for their religious services, in Celosyria, Phenicia, and Leontopolis. 
Joseph. Antiq. Jud. xiii. 6, edit. Colon. Allowing this statement to be 
true, it would appear, that at least many of these foreign Jews had then 
already lost their zeal for attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. 
That the Jews in Egypt did not, in general, attend the feasts at Jerusa- 
lem, is well known. They only sent an occasional deputy there, by way 
of testifying their respect and fraternal sympathy. 

If the Jews in Egypt did thus, we may well suppose that the Jews at a 
greater distance from Palestine imitated them in their remissness, with 
respect to attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. The nature 
of the case shows, that as a body they could not have been habitually 
present at the holy feasts ; and that most of them, indeed, never fre- 
quented Jerusalem at all. In fact, this city could not have accommo- 
dated the one-fourth part of the worshippers from abroad, had all the 
foreign Jews gone up to the feasts held there. 

The natural consequence of not being familiar with the temple rites . 
and priesthood, was a diminution of zeal in the foreign Jews with respect 
to things of this nature; until, in the end, they became to them matters 
of minor importance, or even of comparative indifference. Hence, Paul 
had no disputes with the foreign Jews about these things. At least, no 
marks of such disputes appear in the history of this apostle by Luke, 
nor in the letters of Paul himself, 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 4) 


But here is a point, respecting which the epistle to the Hebrews differs 
widely from all the other epistles of the New Testament. It is not with 
the question whether circumcision is to be retained or rejected; not with 
the dispute about meats offered to idols ; not with prescriptions about new- 
moons and sabbaths, that the writer is concerned. The whole epistle 
turns on different subjects. It is the favourite idea of pre-eminence, so 
tenaciously attached by zealous Jews to all parts of the Mosaic ritual, 
which the writer discusses. The dignity or rank of those, through whose 
mediation the law was given; the temple-apartments, furniture, rites, 
and sacrifices; the order and honour of the priesthood; in a word, the 
whole apparatus of the Levitical service, both daily and annual, are 
the subjects of which he treats, and the things which he compares with 
the corresponding parts of the Christian dispensation, in order to show 
the superiority of the latter. Were angels employed in order to intro- 
duce the law? Christ, who has obtained a name and place far more 
exalted than they, himself introduced the new dispensation. Was Moses 
the beloved and honoured leader of God’s chosen people, placed at the 
head of the Jewish dispensation? He was placed there as a servant ; 
but Christ, at the head of the new dispensation, as a Son. Was the high- 
priest of the Jews a mediator between God and the people, who offered 
up their annual propitiatory sacrifice, and went into the holy of holies, into 
the immediate presence of the Divinity, on their account? The office of 
this high priest, from its very nature, and from the brevity of human life, 
was short and limited: but Christ is high priest for ever ; he has entered 
the holy of holies in the highest heavens, and has once for all offered a 
propitiatory sacrifice of everlasting efficacy. Was the temple a magni- 
ficent structure, the sacred character of which inspired awe? Magni- 
ficent and sacred as it was, it was merely a copy of the temple in which 
Jesus officiates, reared by God himself, and eternal in the heavens. 
Was the blood of goats and bullocks annually presented before the 
shrine of Jehovah by the Jewish high-priest, on the great day of atone- 
ment? Jesus, by his own blood, entered the sanctuary of the eternal 
temple, and made an atonement which needs not to be repeated. Ina 
word, were all the implements of temple-service, all which pertained to 
the order and persons of the priesthood, venerable and holy? All these 
things were merely similitudes of the more perfect temple and priesthood 
of him, who is the great high priest of the Christian dispensation. 

Who, now, were possessed of these specific views in respect to the 
Mosaic ritual, which the writer thus brings inte comparison? To whom 


42 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


could the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (as he constantly does) 
appeal, as being familiarly acquainted with every thing that pertained 
even to the minutest parts of the Jewish ritual, and priesthood, and 
sacred places, and utensils, and the very location of these utensils? To 
whom, I ask, but to the Palestine Jews? To those who from childhood 
were familiar with all these objects, and who had been inspired by edu- 
cation with the most profound reverence for them, and with zeal to main- 
tain their importance. 

Why are not these subjects brought into view, in Paul’s letters to 
other churches? Disputes he had with the Jews, as the epistles to the 
Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians and Thessalonians, in a 
word, as all his epistles, testify. But not about the temple ritual, and 
priesthood, and holy places, and utensils. The disputes concerned other 
rites of Judaism, which could be generally practised by Hebrews living 
in foreign countries; and not those, in which only a few devotees would 
feel a particular interest. 

I cannot resist the impression, when I read the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th 
chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews, that the appeal is made to those 
who have an intimate knowledge, and strong jealousy for the honour of 
the whole Mosaic ritual there brought to view. I am fully aware, that 
pilgrims (so to speak) annually resorted from all parts of the world, where 
the Jews were settled, to Jerusalem. So they do still. But how few 
must these have been, from countries more remote! The supposition 
that the great body of the church, or the whole church, addressed in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, (if these Hebrews belonged to foreign countries,) 
possessed the intimate personal knowledge of the Jewish ritual, holy 
places, and utensils, which the writer evidently supposes those to possess 
whom he addresses, does, in itself considered, seem to be very improbable. 

It is rendered still more so, by some additional facts, which ought to 
be here stated. In the latter part of Paul’s ministry, his disputes abroad 
about Judaism appear to have generally subsided, and he was every 
where received by the foreign churches with great cordiality and affection. 
It was only at the first planting of the churches abroad, at the period 
when the transition was to be made from Judaism to Christianity, (which 
was indeed a great transition in respect to externals,) that disputes arose, 
and passions were awakened, which occasioned much trouble and anxiety 
to the apostle. More light, and a better understanding of the nature of 
Christianity, appeased these disputes, wherever Judaism had not the 
strong grasp which the constant practice of the ritual gave it. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 43 


Not so in Palestine. The very last visit which the apostle made there, 
before he was sent a prisoner to Rome, occasioned a tumult among the 
zealots for the law; who even joined in persecuting him. ‘‘ Thou seest, 
brother,” said the other apostles to him, ‘‘ how many thousand Jews are 
become believers, and they are all ¢y\wrai rod vépmov,” zealots for the 
observance of the law, Acts xxi. 20; the correctness of which sentiment 
was abundantly confirmed by the sequel. That the zealots for the law 
here means particularly the Jews of Palestine, is evident from yer. 21, 
which follows. 

That the Palestine Christians adhered with far greater tenacity to the 
Jewish ritual than the Jews abroad, is clearly sbown moreover by the 
fact that, while the foreign Jews soon abandoned altogether the rites of 
Judaism, the zealots for the Mosaic ritual in Palestine even separated, at 
last, from the community of other Christians, rejected all the epistles of 
Paul from the canon of the New Testament, and retained in all their 
strictness the ceremonies of the law. I refer to the sects of the Nazarenes 
and Ebionites, the first heresies that rent asunder the church of Christ ; 
and which would not bear at all with the catholic spirit of Paul’s preach- 
ing and epistles. 

All these circumstances united, have strongly impressed me with the 
idea, that the whole texture and manner of the epistle to the Hebrews 
almost of necessity implies, that those to whom it was originally addressed 
were habitually attendants on the services of the temple, and intimately 
and persenally acquainted with all its rites and ceremonies. Of course, 
I must regard them as belonging to Palestine, or its near neighbourhood. 

In addition to these considerations, which apply generally to the epistle 
in question, there appear to be some particular references made to cir- 
cumstances, which would seem to presuppose a personal and familiar 

knowledge, on the part of those addressed, with objects in and about 
Jerusalem and the temple. E. g. when the writer says, xiil. 12, “‘ Where- 
fore Jesus, that he might purify the people by his own blood, suffered 


without the gate,” viz. the gate through which criminals were led to exe- 
cution. This implies, that the readers were supposed to be acquainted 
with the locality of Jerusalem. And in ix. 5, after recounting the apart- 
ments and various sacred utensils of the temple, the writer says, Concern- 
ing which things, ov« éort, it is not my purpose [or it is unnecesary] to 
speak particularly ; by which there is an appeal made to the knowledge 
of his hearers, that seems to imply a local and personal acquaintance with 
the circle of objects which are designated. 


44 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


I freely acknowledge these circumstances are not so peculiar and 
exclusive, that it is not possible to apply them to Jews who resided abroad, 
and habitually visited Jerusalem. But where was the community abroad, 
who as a body did this? And then, probability, and not demonstration, 
is what we seek for, in an argument of this nature. If demonstration, 
or what is equivalent to it, had been found in the epistle itself, there had 
not been such endless dispute about it. 

It is a striking fact also, that only Jews are addressed throughout the 
epistle. Where were the churches abroad that consisted only of Jews ? 
I am aware, this argument may be met by asking the question, Could 
not the writer address the Jewish part of a church abroad, and not the 
Gentile? The posszbility of this cannot be denied. The probability 
that it was so, does not, in this case, seem to be very great. For is it 
not natural to suppose, that the Gentile part of the church would have 
been more or less infected with the feelings of the Jewish part ; and that 
some of them, at least, would have also been in danger of apostacy ? 
Could the writer, who shows such deep solicitude to prevent this awful 
catastrophe, fail to have warned his Gentile brethren against their 
danger; and to have exhorted and encouraged them to persevere? If 
this be poss¢ble, we must still grant, when we consider the characteristics 
of the writer, that it is at least highly improbable. 

Nor can it be alleged, as an adequate reply to this, that the epistles to the 
Ephesians and Galatians are exclusively addressed to Gentile converts. 
For, in regard to the first, no such urgent and fundamental question, as 
that treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, comes under discussion. It is 
probable, moreover, that by far the greater part of this church were gentiles. 
And with respect to the epistle to the Galatians, although Storr has as- 
sumed it as a point which admits of no question, that it is directed to Gen- 
tile converts only, yet Noesselt (as we have seen) is of opinion, that it is 
addressed altogether to Jewish converts, and says, that no one except 
Beausobre denies this. Opusc. Fascic. i. p. 293. Neither he nor Storr 
can establish their respective opinions, from the contents of the epistle. 
Most apparent is it, that, in general, converts from the heathen are 
addressed. But when the apostle says, Gal. iv. 9, ‘‘ Why should ye turn 
again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, to which ye 
desire again to be in bondage,” viz. to the Jewish ritual, can he address 
only converts from the heathen ? And when he says, too, ver. 1, “‘ Be 
can he address only those 


? 


not again entangled in the yoke of bondage,’ 
who were formerly heathens? An appeal, then, to the epistles addressed 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 45 


to the Ephesians and Galatians, as being exclusively addressed to only 
one part of churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is not satisfac- 
tory in the case before us; for the Galatian church is plainly addressed 
as a mixed body ; and the church at Ephesus appears to have been prin- 
cipally made up of Gentiles. It is not comparing par cum pari. The 
peculiar circumstances of which the epistle to the Hebrews treats, show 
that a warning to the Gentile part of that church to whom it was sent, 
if such church were among the Gentiles, and consisted in part of them, 
was a thing, to all appearance, of indispensable necessity. « 

Here then is another circumstance, which contributes to render it 
probable that some church in Palestine was addressed by the epistle to 
the Hebrews. It is possible, that there may have been some churches 
abroad wholly made up of Jews; but history has given no account of 
any such; and not only the possibility but the probability of it must 
be shown, before the argument now adduced is deprived of its force. 

Again, the persons addressed are requested to “ call to mind their suf- 
ferings in former days, when they were first enlightened, and when they 
took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and suffered other evils from per- 
secution,” x. 32. 34. This, indeed, may possibly have been true of other 
churches abroad; but we have no historical information of persecutions 
abroad, in the earliest age of Christianity, which were permitted by the 
civil government to proceed so far as to destroy or confiscate property, 
and to imprison persons for any length of time. Palestine was the place 
for such occurrences, from the very first. I am aware that Paul went 
with a commission to Damascus, that he might cast Christians into prison. 
But the very terms of that commission directed him to bring those whom 
he should apprehend “ bound to Jerusalem,” Acts ix. 2. Indeed, it is 
plainly the case, that at this period the Roman magistracy every where 
abroad opposed persecution ; for it was contrary to the established max- 
ims of the Roman government, to intermeddle with the religion of their 
provinces. Often did this magistracy interfere, to protect Christians 
whom the violence of the Jews had assailed; Acts xviii. 12—17. xix. 
35—40. Acts xxi. etc. Still, I have admitted that it is possible such 
early persecution, as the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of, may have taken 
place abroad; but this has not been rendered probable, by producing 
any historical records which testify to it. The solitary instance of Antipas 
at Pergamos, Rev. i. 13, is the only one I have been able to find. In 
all probability, he, like Stephen, was destroyed by the rage of a lawless 
mob. Of course, until more evidence on this subject can be produced, 


46 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


the argument from the passage in our epistle, which has been just cited, 
adds no inconsiderable weight to the evidence in favour of the supposition 
which I am endeavouring to defend. | 

(3.) If it can be rendered probable that Paul wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews, I should think it almost certain that it must have been written 
to Jews in Palestine; for throughout the whole epistle, there is not one 
word which shows the writer to have been the instrument of their conver- 
sion, or even to have been their religious teacher. What church abroad 
could be thus addressed by Paul? For what one had not been either 
planted or nurtured by him? I do not deny the possibility of there hay- 
ing been some one; but the evidence that there actually was, at the time 
when our epistle was written I have not been able to find. 

And besides this, it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, that not 
one word is said, which implies that their teachers were lacking in any 
thing pertaining either to their knowledge, or the duties demanded by their 
office. All is commendation. How natural is this, and easy to be ac- 
counted for, if these teachers were apostles or immediate disciples of 
Christ himself; and such were the teachers of the churches in Palestine. 
On the whole, this is a circumstance which increases the probability of 
the opinion that I am assaying to defend. 

Internal evidence, then, is not wanting, which accords with the testi- 
mony given by the inscription of the epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, 
the concurrence of both kinds of evidence is such, as to afford grounds of 
probability as strong as could be expected in regard to a question of this 
nature, which respects a matter so ancient and so difficult. Direct and 
positive proof, incapable of being in any way questioned or contradicted, 
can neither be required nor justly expected. But there is evidence 
enough, as it appears to me, to render the opinion of the ancient church, 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Christians in Palestine 
altogether probable. 

Objections, however, drawn from the epistle itself, against this opinion, 
have been often and strongly urged by critics of late; and these cannot, 
with due respect to the authors of them, be passed over in silence. 

OpsEcTION 1. “ Heb. ii. 3. ‘ How shall we escape, if we neglect so 
great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and 
was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?’ From this passage it 
appears that Christ had not personally taught those to who. this epistle 
is addressed; they had only been instructed by those who heard him, 
viz. the apostles and immediate disciples of Christ. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE 2 47 


It is remarkable that this same verse is adduced and relied on, by 
Lardner, to support the opinion that the Hebrews of Palestine only could 
have been addressed by it; and by Storr, to prove that those could not 
have been the persons addressed. The argument is equally valid in both 
cases, i. e. it amounts to nothing in either. For the simple sentiment of 
the text is, ‘‘ How can we escape punishment, if we neglect the gospel 
first published by the Lord of glory in person, and then abundantly con- 
firmed by miracles which were wrought by the apostles and immediate 
disciples of Christ ?” 

Now, this might be said to any church of that period, in any country ; 
and to any church on earth, from that period down to the present hour. 
Of course, it determines nothing relative to the question, whether our 
epistle was directed to a church in, or out of Palestine. 

OBJECTION 2. ‘Heb. xii. 4. ‘Ye have not resisted unto blood, 
striving against sin ;’ i. e. against injurious and unjust opposition. How 
could this be said to the church at Jerusalem, which had been called to 
witness the martyrdom of Stephen and others, and the bloody death of 
James ; and who had lived in the fire of persecution ever since its first 
establishment ?” 

This argument has appeared so conclusive to many critics, that they 
have abandoned the idea of supporting the ancient opinion, that our 
epistle was directed to the church in Palestine. Its first appearance 
inclined me to the same conclusion. A more particular examination of 
it, however, has led me to doubt altogether of its validity. 

‘Call to mind,” says the writer, ‘“‘ your severe afflictions in former 
cays, when ye were first enlightened,” x. 32—34. That is, your former 
persecutions, which were severe, ye bore with patience and cheerfulness, 
although ye suffered imprisonment and loss gof property. Now, indeed, 
ye are tried, continues the writer, but not in the highest degree. <‘‘ Ye 
have not yet resisted unto blood.” How then does the history of the 
church in Palestine comport with this sentiment? A question which 
must necessarily be investigated here. 

The first persecution was that which arose at the time of Stephen’s 
martyrdom, Acts vi. vii. This happened probably in A. D. 37 or 38. 
During this persecution many were imprisoned, severely beaten, and 
subjected to various insults and outrages; but there is no satisfactory 
evidence, that any blood was shed except that of Stephen. Paul, in 
giving an account of his former conduct, says, that he persecuted Chris- 
tianity unto death, Acts xxii. 4, which was in fact the case with respect to 


48 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


Stephen ; and no doubt he designed to do so, in respect to many others, 
But in telling us what he actually effected, he says that he arrested 
Christians, beat them in the synagogues, Acts xxii. 4, 19, compelled 
them to blaspheme, and shut them up in prison, Acts xxvi. 10,11. But 
the voice of Jesus arrested him, on his way to Damascus ; and in con- 
fessing his crime, he avows that he imprisoned believers and beat them in 
the synagogues. But he does not state that he was guilty of blood, except 
in the case of Stephen, Acts xxii. 19, 20. As this passage contains, we 
have reason to believe, a full confession of his guilt, it may serve to 
explain the doubtful passage in Acts xxvi. 10, where he says, when they 
were slain, (dvawpoupévwy atrdy) I gave my vote against them. The 
plural number here (avapouvpévwy) has led many to suppose that Paul 
was concerned in frequent murders. But any one versed in the narra- 
tions of the New Testament, cannot but know how frequently the plural 
number is used to designate the occurrence of facts, in which only one 
person is concerned, i. e. where the sense of the passage requires it to be 
understood only as in the singular. It is thus that the thieves on the 
cross are said to have reviled the Saviour, although only one of them did 
so, Matt. xxvii. 44, Mark xv. 32, comp. Luke xxii. 39; thus, that the 
demoniacs at Gadara are said to have been exceedingly fierce, when only 
one of them was so, Matt. viii. 283—34, comp. Mark v. 1—18, Luke viii- 
26—38 ; and thus, in other cases, presented by the Scriptures,* and (I 
may add) by other writings also, too numerous to be here recounted. 
Nothing is said, in the history of the first persecution, of any Christians 
suffering martyrdom besides Stephen. Nothing in Paul’s confession to 
the Saviour, which specifies the blood that he had shed. The conclusion 
seems to be, then, that only the blood of Stephen was shed on this occa- 
sion, although doubtless Paul then meant to add to the number of mar- 
tyrs; he gave his vote for this purpose, Acts xxvi. 10, and abused Chris- 
tians in various ways, such as the spite and malice of Jews suggested. 
But they were not destroyed. It must be remembered, in regard to this 
persecution, that it was limited to Jerusalem ; with the exception only 
that Paul designed to extend it to Damascus, Acts vill. 12, xxvi. 10. 
Saul’s conversion, however, appears to have put an end to this perse- 
cution ; for we read, after his first visit to Jerusalem, that the churches in 


* See Matt. xx. 30—34, and comp. Mark x. 46—52, xviii. 35—43. See also 
Matt. xxviii. 1, Mark xvi. 1, 2, with which comp. Luke xxiv. 1, 9, 10, and John xx. 
4; 11,418, 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 49 


Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, were in a state of peace and prosperity 
and were multiplied, Acts ix. 31. 

Persecution again broke out under Herod Agrippa, (about A. D. 44,) 
who, to gain favour with the Jews, pretended great zeal for the law; 
and, to do them a pleasure, undertook to harass Christians. How widely 
he extended his efforts to vex them, the sacred historian has not told us ; 
it is simply said that he undertook cax@oal rivae Tov aro Tie éxxAyolac, 
and that he put to death James the brother of John, and cast Peter into 
prison, Acts xii. 1, 3. It is very probable, since Herod lived a part of 
his time at Cesarea, that he may have extended his vexations to the 
churches there, in order to increase his popularity in that city, which 
was the capital of his kingdom. Be this as it may, we read of only one 
death on this occasion; James he destroyed, aveiie ; but others, éxakwoe. 
This persecution happened so early as A. D. 44. 

Herod died a short time after this, at Cesarea, smitten by a divine 
hand on account of his having impiously received praise asa God. With 
his death the persecution ceased ; for the Roman procurators who fol- 
lowed, allowed of no open persecution. It was not until the departure 
of Festus, and before the arrival of his successor Albinus, (nineteen or 
twenty years after the persecution of Herod,) that the Jews were again 
engaged in any open or violent outrages against Christians. James the 
younger, and some others with him, were then destroyed by Ananus the 
high-priest. But this act of violence was disapproved by the considerate 
and sober part of the Jews, and Ananus himself was thrust out of office, 
by the interference of the succeeding Roman governor, on account of 
this act of cruelty, Josephus Antiq. xx. These are all the persecutions 
unto blood, in Palestine and before the destruction of Jerusalem, of 
which we have any historical information. The last of these probably 
occurred, after the epistle to the Hebrews was written. Vexation, pro- 
ceeding from personal insult, contumely, excommunications, malice, and 
blind fiery zeal, on the part of the unbelieving Jews, no doubt, the 
Christians in Palestine suffered very frequently, during the period before 
the destruction of Jerusalem. But restraint of personal liberty, and 
destruction of property or of life, were not permitted by the Roman govern- 
ment, while the civil administration of Judea was actually in their hands. 

Compare now. these facts, (which I have not seen fully developed by 
any of the critics who have written on our epistle,) with the passage which 
is at present under consideration. Our epistle is directed to Christians 
as a body, and not to the teachers or officers of the churches; for these 

E 


50 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


are separately spoken of, Heb. xu. 7,17. and a salutation is sent to them, 
Heb. xiii. 24, as not being a party to the epistle, but a separate class of 
persons. The investigation which we have instituted shows that only 
teachers, and not private Christians, had suffered martyrdom in Judea 

An epistle to private Christians in Palestine, then, and not addressed to 
their teachers, might say, and might truly say, ‘“‘ Ye have not yet resisted 
unto blood, striving against sin ;” 
suffered martyrdom. 


although some of their teachers had 


Eichhorn, denying that our epistle was written to a church in Palestine, 
asks, as though it were incapable of contradiction, ‘‘ Did not blood often 
flow at Jerusalem, and (since this was the metropolis of the country) in 
Palestine at large ?’’ And then he concludes it to be impossible, that our 
epistle should say to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, ‘‘ Ye have not 
resisted unto blood.” But had he minutely investigated the history of 
these persecutions, he might have spared his conclusion, and refrained 
from the assurance with which it is stated. If, however, we should admit 
all that is contended for, viz. that in the persecution of-the time of Stephen, 
and under Herod Agrippa, many private Christians were destroyed ; even 
then, the passage of the epistle, which we are considering, offers no for- 
midable difficulty. Plainly the principles of interpretation demand no 
more, than that what is said, in the verse under consideration, should 
have respect to the generation of Christians then living, and the persecu- 
tion then pending, when the epistle was written. One generation of 
Christians, who were adults, or in advanced life, when they were con- 
verted, (which might have been on or near the day of Pentecost,) must 
have necessarily passed off the stage, in a period of almost thirty years, 
But many of the generation now addressed may have been Christians, and 
probably were so, at the time when Herod persecuted the church; which 
accords well with what our epistle says, ‘‘ Remember the former days, 
when, soon after your conversion, ye endured a great fight of afflictions,” 
x. 32—34. But after that, when Herod was dead, there was a remission 
of severities. Now again, the violence of the Jews had begun to show 
itself; but the Roman government overawed it, so as to restrain it from 
shedding blood. Such a state of things agrees well with the language of 
our epistle. Ye have not, i. e. in your present struggle, resisted unto 
blood. This expression has not necessarzly any respect to preceding 
times of persecution, but only to that which was then pending. In this 
way the laws of exegesis are satisfied. But if not, if the expression must 
be referred to past times, it is, as we have already seen, capable of histo- 


~ 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 51 


rical vindication, when applied to the Hebrews. Private persons had not 
resisted unto blood. 

My apology for dwelling so long on this subject is, the interesting facts 
in the history of the church with which it is connected; and the hasty 
conclusions, or imperfect investigations respecting it, which I have found 
in all the writers whom I have had opportunity to consult. Even 
Schroeckh, in his great work on Ecclesiastical History, has omitted any 
detailed account of the primitive persecutions, and has given us nothing 
which is adapted to satisfy a particular inquirer. 

OJECTION 3. ‘ Heb. xiii. 24. They of Italy salute you. What did 
the church in Italy know of the church in Palestine, that they should 
send salutations to them? Or if, as most critics have averred, they of 
Ztaly means Priscilla and Aquila, how should the church of Palestine 
know any thing of these private Jews, who had only travelled from Rome 
to Corinth, from Corinth to Ephesus, and thence back again to Rome ?” 

In regard to the first part of this objection, it is sufficient to ask, How 
could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, 1 Peter y. 13, 
to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ? 
1 Peteri.1. How could Paul, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, 
say, ‘‘ The churches of Asia salute you?” 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Was then 
the church at Babylon personally acquainted with all those churches in 
Asia, to whom their salutation is sent by Peter? Or were the churches 
of Asia personally acquainted with the Corinthians? Neither the one, 
nor the other. Neither was necessary; for what is more common than 
salutations, sent by a mutual friend, from some persons, to others whom 
they have never seen ? 

But farther: had they of Italy never heard of the church in Palestine? 
And might they not sympathize with them in their trials and dangers, 
and send them an affectionate expression of their regard in a salutation ? 
Such objections cannot surely help to support the cause, in aid of which 
they are adduced. 

As to Aquila and Priscilla (if the oi a6 rife Iradiac means them, 
which is very improbable,) a sympathy in them, as Jews, for their Chris- 
tian brethren in Palestine, is surely not a matter of wonder. And an 
expression of this in a salutation, is as little so. 

OBJECTION 4. ‘‘ The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, has in 
various places eulogized them for the charity which they had so cheer- 
fully manifested, and continued to manifest, on various occasions, Heb. 
vi. 10; in particular, for their compassion towards those who were in 

E2 


52 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


bonds, i. e. imprisoned, x. 32 seq. He exhorts them also to continue 

' their benefactions of this nature, by a liberal hospitality, Heb. xii. 1, 2, 
and 16, How could such things be addressed to the church in Palestine ? 
and how could that church be praised for contributions to others when its 
members were so poor, from the first, that they had even been assisted by 
the contributions of churches from abroad 2?” 

But this argument fails of producing conviction, because it is built on 
an interpretation of the epistle which is not admissible, and on an as- 
sumption of facts altogether improbable and unsupported. The writer 
tells them, that God will not forget their labour of love, in that they have 
ministered to the saints, and do still minister, vi. 10; that they have had 
compassion on those who were in bonds, x. 34; that they must not forget 
to entertain strangers, xill. 2; and that God is well pleased with their 
sacrifices of hospitality (xowwriac,) xii. 16. Here is nothing said, or 
even intimated, of making contributions for churches abroad. They are 
commended for being liberal to the saints, who were in need or in prison; 
and exhorted to continue their hospitality to strangers, 1. e. to receive 
with liberality and kindness brethren that were strangers from abroad 
(probably, preachers,) who visited them. Who can doubt that a charac- 
teristic, so peculiarly exhibited by Christians in general of the primitive 
age, was manifested by the churches in Palestine? a country which so 
many strangers visited. 

But when it is said, that the church in Palestine was supported by 
contributions from abroad, why should this be predicated, as it is by 
many critics, of ald the Christian churches in Palestine? There is no 
support for this opinion to be derived trom history. When the famine 
occurred in the time of Claudius, Acts x1. 27—30, a collection was 
made at Antioch, and sent to Judea; which appears, however, to have 
been distributed at Jerusalem, Acts xii. 25. In respect to all the other 
collections mentioned in Paul’s epistles, Jerusalem is evidently the place 
for which they were destined. See Rom. xv. 25—31. 1 Cor. xvi. 1-—3. 
2 Cor. viii. ix. ele dyiove; comp, 1 Cor. xvi. 1—3. Gal. i. 1—10. If 
now we consider the circumstances of the church at Jerusalem, this will 
not excite any surprise. For, first, in this metropolis Jewish zeal was 
more displayed than elsewhere; and Christians here were, of course, 

' peculiarly exposed to persecution and want. Secondly, the multitude 
of Christian Jews, who still resorted to the temple in order to pay their 
services there, and who would naturally consort with the Christians at 
Jerusalem, rendered necessary the charity of the churches abroad, in 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 53 


order that the Christians of the Jewish metropolis might support their 
hospitality. But as to other churches in Palestine, we know nothing of 
their poverty. We know that many Christians in that country had 
possessions, and sold them in order to put the avails into the public 
treasury of the church, soon after the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 44, 45. 
Indeed, it is beyond all the bounds of probability, to suppose that of the 
many thousand Jews in Palestine, who had become Christians, al/ were 
poor, and in need of foreign charity. Poverty of this nature was not very 
common among the Jews, who were always an active and industrious 
nation. Above all, the supposition that the Hebrew Christians were 
unable to perform the common rites of hospitality, and to aid in any way 
such as were thrown into prison, or to furnish them with aliment, is 
destitute of every degree of probability; and therefore it can form no 
solid objection to the idea, that the epistle to the Hebrews was addressed 
to some church or churches in Palestine. Why is it necessary to suppose 
that the church at Jerusalem, and that exclusively, was addressed ? 

Moreover, the very objection itself affords an argument for the position 
which it is designed to oppose. In what country were the prisoners to 
whom compassion had been shown? Prisoners they were, evidently, on 
account of their Christian faith. We have seen that neither liberty nor 
life were, at this period, in jeopardy abroad, on account of religion, 
because of the restraint over the Jews exercised by the Roman govern- 
ment. We have no history that proves such jeopardy to have been 
matter of fact. The mere temporary imprisonment of Paul and Silas, 
on a charge of sedition, and as preparatory to trial, (Acts xvi.) proves 
nothing to the purpose. Accounts of other imprisonments besides this, 
out of Palestine, cannot be shown in the history of the primitive church, 
at least within the Roman provinces abroad. Palestine was the only 
place where Christians were imprisoned. Even when Paul went to 
Damascus, he expected to bring his prisoners to Jerusalem, Acts ix. 2. 
Palestine then was the place where compassion to Christian prisoners 
was needed, and where it was to be shown; and there, as it seems to me, 
it was exhibited by those whom the epistle to the Hebrews addresses. 

OBJECTION 5. ‘* Heb. xii. 23.‘ Know ye that our brother Timothy 
is set at liberty, awoedvpévoy, with whom, if he come soon, I will pay 
you a visit.’ How could the church in Palestine know any thing of 
Timothy, who was never there? and what particular concern can they 
be supposed to have had with a visit of Timothy to them ?” 

But, first, it is altogether probable that Timothy was-with Paul at 


54 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


Jerusalem, during his last visit there, before his imprisonment. It is 
certain from Acts xx. 4, that Timothy set out with him and several 
others, from Troas, to go to Jerusalem; and equally certain, that 
although the history of Paul’s voyage to Palestine, at that time, is traced 
with a minuteness that is unusual, not a word is mentioned of Timothy’s 
being left behind, or being separated for any time from him; although 
it is the custom of Luke to mention such a fact, whenever it occurs; 
e. g. Acts xix. 22, xvii. 14, xx. 5.13, 14. Indeed, it is altogether 
against probability, that Timothy would have separated from Paul, on 
this occasion; as it was announced to Paul, on his way, that bonds 
and imprisonment awaited him at Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 4, xx. 23; not to 
mention the desire which Timothy, who had been educated as a Jewish 
proselyte, must have had, to see Jerusalem, and the interesting objects 
which it presented. 

The sequel of this journey was, that Paul was kept two years as a 
prisoner at Cesarea; with full liberty of access, however, to all his friends 
and acquaintance. Is there any probability that Timothy, who was so 
ardently attached to Paul, as to have followed him every where, from the 
very first of his acquaintance with him, would have now immediately 
deserted him; or, even if he was then abroad, that he would not have 
come to aid his necessities? So far then as the objection is built on 
Timothy’s ignorance of the Jews in Palestine, or theirs of him, it appears 
altogether improbable. 

Besides, even supposing Timothy had not been personally there, did 
not the churches there know that he was the favourite companion and 
helper of Paul? And was he not commended to the Jews, by the fact 
that, after he became a Christian, he had submitted to the rite of circum- 
cision on their account? If Paul wrote the epistle in question, or any 
other person intimately connected with Timothy, he might very naturally 
give the churches in Palestine, and specially the church at Cesarea, 
information that he was sent away (aoXedvpévoy,) or set at liberty, and 
that when he should return, he would pay them a visit in his company. 

OBJECTION 6. ‘* But how could Paul pray to be restored to the 
churches in Palestine? Hebrews xiii. 19. He had just been sent to 
Rome as a prisoner, by the persecuting spirit of the Jews of Palestine ; 
how could he expect or wish to return thither again ?” 

This objection is built on the assumption, that Paul was the author of 
our epistle. Conceding this point then, for the sake of argument, it may 
be asked, in reply, If Paul had been at Rome, and was dismissed there 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 55 


by the emperor himself, on an appeal to him personally as a judge in 
respect to the Jews, might not the apostle well expect that the Jews 
would in future be overawed, and not venture to attack him again on 
account of his religion? Besides, it was only at Jerusalem that he was 
exposed to dangerous persecution. At Cesarea, he remained a kind of 
prisoner at large, without any tumult or excitement, for two whole years. 
Might he not desire to be restored to the brethren there, who had treated 
him in a friendly manner, and administered to his necessities while he 
was among them asa prisoner? Besides, Paul was not a man to be 
deterred from a desire to go, or from actually going, to any place where 
he thought it his duty to go, by any prospect of persecution or of suf- 
ferings ; as his history abundantly testifies. 

OpnsecTION 7. “ The Ebionites, a sect made up of Palestine Jews, 
appear to have known nothing of the epistle to the Hebrews. How could 
this be, if it had been directed to any of the churches in Palestine ?” 

If Paul was the author of this epistle, then it is very easy to answer 
this objection ; for the Ebionites rejected all the epistles of Paul from 
their canon, (as Eusebius expressly testifies,) because Paul every where 
appears in them, wherever occasion demands it, in opposition to a Juda- 
izing spirit. They, on the other hand, separated from other Christians 
out of zeal for the rites of the Jewish law. Nay, the manner in which 
Eusebius mentions this fact, seems to imply that the Ebionites were 
acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and rejected it, together with 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles; for Eusebius reckoned this epistle to be 
certainly one of Paul’s; and he mentions the rejection of Paul’s epistles 
by these sectarians, in a manner which seems to imply, that the whole of 
these epistles, as reckoned by himself, were rejected by them.* 

To the same purpose Irenzeus testifies, Advers. Heeres. i. 26. ‘* Apos- 
tolum Paulum [Ebionite] recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentis.” 

Moreover, if some other person, and not Paul, had been the author of 


* Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. iii. 27,) says, that the Ebionites rejected ati Paul’s epistles, 
because they believed him to be an apostate from the law, obrot d rod piv doordou 
mdoac Tac émtatohdg apvnréac Hyovvro eivat Seiv, anooTarny amoKadovyTEc avTov 
vow vépnov, Now, as in L, iii. 25, of the same author, the epistle to the Hebrews is 
implicitly reckoned as one of Paul’s epistles, and clearly as one of the books of Scrip- 
ure which are époAoyotpevor, (comp. Lib. iii. 25, and iii. 3,) it appears that Eusebius 
means to say, that the Ebionites rejected the epistle to the Hebrews ; for he undoubt- 
edly held this to be one of Paul’s. Of course, he supposes the Ebionites to have been 
acquainted with it, or to have had opportunity of being acquainted with it. 


56 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


the epistle to the Hebrews, the sentiments which it contains respecting the 
Jewish ritual, would have occasioned its rejection from the canon of the 
Ebionites. That they did not retain it, then, as part of their New Tes- 
tament Scriptures, is no argument against its having been directed to the 
church in Palestine. 

OBJECTION 8. ‘‘ But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed ta 
the church in Palestine, why was it not written in the dialect of tha 
country, instead of the Greek language ? Is it not improbable, that any 
writer would address, in Greek, Jews who spoke the Hebrew language ?” 

There are critics, both of ancient and modern times, who maintain 
that the original epistle was in Hebrew ; believing, as Jerome says, that 
the author, ut Hebreus, Hebreis Hebraicé scripsit. But as I am not 
persuaded of the correctness of this opinion, I will not advance it here, 
as a reply to the objection which we are now considering. 

It is well known, and abundantly evident from the writings of the 
New Testament, that the Greek language was generally understood over 
all Hither Asia. The conquests of Alexander, and the governments estab- 
lished by him, had made Greek the language of courts, of literature, 
and of all well-informed people. In the larger and more commercial 
towns, this knowledge extended in some measure to the common people, 
as well as to those of a more elevated rank.* 

The Greek votaries, who went up to Jerusalem every year to perform 
their religious services there, must have rendered the Greek language 
somewhat current in this metropolis. It was the language by which all 
the inhabitants of western Asia, when they met as strangers, held inter- 
course with one another. If the epistle to the Hebrews, then, was 
written in Greek, and directed to the church at Jerusalem, it might have 
been understood by them. 

But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Cesarea, there is 
still more reason to suppose it would have been easily understood there. 
In that city there were a great multitude of Greeks, even a majority of 
its inhabitants, Joseph. Bell. Jud. ili. 14, p. 854, edit. Colon., rdéor tg’ 
’"EAAjvwv exoccoupévny. The Jews who lived there, were, in general, 
men devoted to commerce, or to concerns of a public nature, and must 
have well understood the Greek language. No serious difficulty, then, 
lies in the way of supposing this epistle to have been sent to some part 


* See this subject illustrated, in a very able and satisfactory manner. by ILug, in his 
Einleit, in Das. N. Test. Theil ii. § 10. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 57 


of Palestine, and that it was intelligible there, although written in the 
Greek language. 

On the other hand, is it not apparent, that the author of our epistle 
designed it should be encyclical, so that Jews far and near might ulti- 
mately peruse it, in order that they might become weaned from their 
attachment to the Levitical rites, and substitute Christianity in the place 
of the Mosaic religion? Such a design would have been in some mea- 
sure defeated, by writing it in Hebrew; for Greek was by far the most 
general language. - 

Taking all these facts into view, that it was written in Greek, does not 
appear to constitute any solid objection to its having been directed to 
some part of Palestine. 

OBJECTION 9. ‘* How could this epistle have been directed to Pales- 
tine, when the ground of argument in it, in several places, is furnished 
by the Septuagint version, and not by the Hebrew Scriptures? How 
could Jews in Palestine be convinced, by an appeal of this nature ?” 

But who does not know, that the Palestine Jews of that day regarded 
the Septuagint version as being of divine authority? Josephus gives 
full credit to the account of Aristeas, respecting the miraculous manner 
in which this version was made; as may be seen in his Antiq. xii. 2, 
edit. Colon. There could be no danger, that the Jews of Palestine 
would object to such an appeal, or to such a mode of argument. 


RESULT. 


I have now examined all the objections against the opinion, that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, with which I have met, 
and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve attention. I 
am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and surely they 
come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the positive 
proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and falls short 
of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the epistle itself 
would possess. But uniting the whole of it together; considering the 
intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong attachment to their 
ritual, and the special danger of defection from Christianity in conse- 
quence of it, which the whole texture of the epistle necessarily supposes, 
and combining these things with the other circumstances above discussed, 
I cannot resist the impression, that the universal opinion of the ancient 
church respecting the persons to whom our epistle was addressed, was 
well founded, being built upon early tradition and the contents of the 


58 § 1]. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE 


epistle ; and that the doubts and difficulties thrown in the way by 
modern and recent critics, are not of sufficient importance to justify us 
in relinquishing the belief that Palestine Christians were addressed by 
the epistle to the Hebrews. Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism 
and to history, are believed and treated as realities, which have less 
support than the opinion that has now been examined. 

There remains but one question more, relative to the original destina- 
tion of this epistle, concerning which inquiry is now to be made. 


§ 11. Was it directed to ALL the churches in Palestine, or only to 
ONE? And if only to one, was this the church at Jerusalem, or 


at some other place ? 


This question cannot be answered, as is sufficiently evident from what 
has been already said, by adducing any direct testimony concerning it. 
-robability, made out from circumstantial evidence, is all, at the most, 
which criticism can achieve. Perhaps it may fail, even in respect to this. 

While engaged in the investigations necessary to complete the views 
above presented, it often occurred to me as not improbable, that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to the church at Cesarea. 
The reasons of this I will now briefly state. 

Cesarea, Katodpera waptdwe, Cesarea by the sea, was built by Hered 
the Great, in a most splendid manner, and named by him in honour of 
he Roman emperor Augustus. Previously to this, it was an insignificant 
village, called Zrparwvoe ripyoc, the tower of Strato. Although it lay 
out of the district of Judea, (as anciently defined by the Jews,) and 
within the borders of Phenicia, yet it was within the Roman procurator- 
ship of Judea, and was the capital of the Roman prefects or procurators. 
Josephus calls it “‘ the greatest city of Judea,” and says, (as has been 
already mentioned,) that the majority of the inhabitants were Greeks, 
Bell. Jud. iii. 14, p. 854, edit. Colon. 

Here Cornelius, the first convert to the Christian faith from the Gen- 
tiles, was stationed. On occasion of his conversion, a church was 
gathered here, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit imparted to it, Acts 
x. 44—48. This was the earliest church that was gathered, out of the 
ancient limits of Judea. 

Paul had repeated opportunities for acquaintance with Christians here. 
After his first journey to Jerusalem, he returned to Tarsus, through 
Cesarea, Acts ix. 30. After preaching at Corinth, and on going to 
revisit the churches in Asia, Paul landed here, Acts xviii. 22. On his 


CHURCHES OF PALESTINE IN GENERAL ? 59 


fourth visit to Palestine, he lodged here at the house of Philip the 
Evangelist, one of the seven deacons named in Acts vi. Here he abode 
many days, iyépac mdetovc, Acts xxi. 8—10. Here, at the time just 
mentioned, when Agabus had predicted, that in case Paul went to Jeru- 
salem, he would be bound as a culprit there, and delivered up to the 
heathen tribunals, the men of the place (ot év7dé7to01,) as well as his own 
travelling companions, besought him with tears and strong entreaties to 
refrain from going thither, Acts xxi. 12, 13. 

When, after this, he had been up to Jerusalem, and was sent away 
under a guard of Roman soldiers, he was brought again to Cesarea ; 
where he remained two whole years a kind of prisoner at large, none 
of his friends being forbidden to approach or assist him, Acts xxiv. 23, 27. 

At Cesarea dwelt a rich and powerful body of Jews. In the time of 
Felix, these Cesarean Jews, boasting of their riches and of Herod as the 
founder of the city, treated with contempt the Syrian part of the popu- 
lation. This raised a tumult, and at last occasioned mutual assaults, in 
which the Syrians were worsted. Felix was obliged to check the overbear- 
ing power of the Jewish party, by commissioning the Roman soldiery to 
kill and plunder them, Antiq. Jud. xx. 6, p. 695, edit. Colon. 

The Jews here, it appears also, were strong zealots for the temple 
worship. Herod Agrippa, while king of Judea, very probably in order 
to ingratiate himself with the rich men of this his capital, as well as 
with those of Jerusalem, pretended a very strong zeal for Judaism. 
This he exhibited, by causing James the brother of John to be slain with 
the sword, by imprisoning Peter, and vexing others of the church, Acts 
xii. 1, seq. Now, considering that Cesarea was his capital, and that to 
ingratiate himself with the Jews there, who were rich and powerful, 
would be a great object for a prince so wholly devoted as he was to the 
interests of ambition; is it probable that his vexations of the church 
were limited to Jerusalem ? 

Let us now put all these facts together, and compare them with the 
contents of our epistle, on the supposition that Paul wrote it. From the 
epistle to the Hebrews it no where appears, that the writer was the first 
teacher of the church whom he addresses, but the contrary is plainly 
implied. Now, history tells us that Peter planted the church at Cesarea, 
and not Paul, Acts x. The teachers of the church addressed in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, are applauded without any exception as to their 
doctrine or behaviour ; and so this might well be, for the first teache’ 
at Cesarea were apostles and primitive evangelists. Philip the evangelist 


60 & 5. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE 


was stationed there, when Paul made his last visit to Jerusalem, Acts 
xxi. 8, seq.; and this Philip had four daughters, who were prophetesses, 
i. e. teachers of the Christian religion. Does not this show a flourishing 
state of the church there? The persons to whom the epistle to the 
Hebrews is addressed, had often bestowed charity to relieve the neces- 
sities of Christians, and particularly of those who were imprisoned | 
Heb. x. 34, vi. 10. How aptly this fits the circumstances of Paul among 
the Cesareans, it is easy to perceive. He was a prisoner among them 
tor the space of two years. Well might he say, ‘‘ Ye had compassion 
Totc deopoic prov, on my bonds,” as the common text reads; or (which 
comes after all to the same thing) roic deopiouc, on the imprisoned. 
Paul’s gratitude for this, probably led him to speak of it repeatedly ; 
and so it stands in the epistle to the Hebrews. The eulogy, which the 
writer of that epistle bestows on those whom he addresses, certainly 
becomes very significant, on supposition that it was written by Paul 
under such circumstances. 

The Hebrews addressed in our epistle had been early made converts 
to Christianity, v. 12, x. 32. The church at Cesarea was the first 
gathered out of the ancient limits of Judea. Its first converts, indeed, 
were Gentile proselytes, Acts x.; but it cannot with any probability be 
supposed, that, flourishing as it was when Paul paid his last visit to it, 
before his imprisonment, Acts xxi. 8, seq., there were no Jews who 
belonged to it; for Cesarea contained (as we have seen) a large number 
of Hebrew residents. Herod Agrippa persecuted the church in A. D. 
44, which was some twenty years before the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written ; and Cesarea was Herod’s capital. May not the Christians in 
it have suffered at that time? The Hebrews, in our epistle, had lost 
their property in some early persecution, and had been imprisoned, x. 
32, seq.; and the persecuting Herod, who had the power of life and 
death, had also the power of confiscation and imprisonment ; for he was 
made a sovereign by the Roman emperor. Under him the church at 
Cesarea may have experienced, and very probably did experience, such 
vexations. Certainly the church at Jerusalem experienced them at this 
time, Acts xu. 1, seq. 

The epistle to the Hebrews presents images drawn from the Grecian 
games and public shows, x. 32, xii. 1, seq. At Cesarea, Hered the Great 
had instituted all the Grecian games, and built a splendid theatre; yo 
that such allusions would be very forcible and pertinent, if addressed to 


those who lived there. The writer of our epistle mentions Timothy, to 


CHURCHES OF PALESTINE IN GENERAL ? 61 


the church whom he addresses, as his special friend, and one in whom 
they would feel a deep interest; and as Timothy, it cannot well be 
doubted, was at Cesarea with Paul more or less of the time that he was 
a prisoner there for two years, the church at that place must have been 
well acquainted with him. Paul requests their prayers, that he himself 
may be restored to them, xiii. 19; and the frequent visits which he had 
made the Cesareans, the strong attachment they had manifested to him, 
and the long residence he had made among them, correspond well with 
a request so plainly founded in their affectionate regard for him, and in 
his for them. 

Again, Cesarea was only two days’ journey from Jerusalem, and the 
Jews there were zealots for the traditions of their fathers. Resistance to 
the Roman power, which finally brought on the destruction of the Jewish 
commonwealth, first began here, from the wounded spirit of Jewish pride 
and national feeling. These facts render it probable, that the Jews there 
had a full and intimate acquaintance with all the Mosaic ritual; and 
that the Christian Jews must, from the power, wealth, and overbearing 
spirit of the others, have been hard pressed, (by persecution on the one 
hand, and the imposing pomp of the temple service on the other,) to 
make defection from the Christian religion. Finally, as the majority of 
the inhabitants here were Greeks, and of course the current language in 
this splendid capital was Greek, this may account for it, that our epistle 
was written in Greek instead of the Palestine dialect. From this place, 
it could not fail to be circulated abroad, as there must have been comers 
and goers to and from this place, from all parts of Palestine. For Paul 
to subscribe his name to this epistle was not necessary, in case he sent it 
by a friend, as doubtless he must have done; and besides this, the cir- 
cumstances mentioned in it, of being restored to them, and of coming to 
them with Timothy, would be sufficient of themselves to disclose the 
author to the Cesarean Christians. And designed, as the letter in all 
probability was, to be a circular among the Jews, they who were abroad, 
reading it without the name of the author, would not so readily have those 
prejudices awakened, which had lately shown themselves to be very 
violent among the Jews who were zealous for the honour of the Mosaic 
law, whenever Paul had made his appearance among them. 

1 grant, at once, that all this is supposition. But in the absence of 
all positive testimony, if a supposition can be presented, which contains 
nothing improbable in itself, and explains a variety of characteristic pas- 
sages in our epistle, and accords well with the facts which history has 


62 § 11. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE 


recorded, may it not be received, at least, as a probability, until the fal- 
lacy of it be exposed, or a more probable one is advanced ? 

The points of coincidence just recited, forced themselves upon me, 
unsought and unexpected, in the course of my investigation. They are 
not offered from the love of novelty, nor with any overweening confidence 
as to the approbation which others may give them. 

One objection to the view here given seems to be, that the church at 
Cesarea, in the time of Origen and Eusebius, (both of whom lived there,) 
do not appear to have retained a tradition that our epistle was directed to 
them. At least, neither of these fathers, so far as I know, make mention 
of such a tradition; which they probably might have done, had it existed 
in their times. Still, if our epistle was designed to be a circular, and, 
for that reason, a direction to any particular church was omitted in it, 
the Cesarean church, if they were the first who received it, might not 
have considered it appropriately theirs, in the same manner as the Corin- 
thians, Galatians, and others, did the letters addressed to them. 

Another objection to the idea, that our epistle was directed to the 
church at Cesarea, may be drawn from the probability, that the church 
there must have consisted, in fact, of Gentiles; especially as Greeks 
constituted a majority of the population of that city. What was really 
fact, however, in regard to this, at the time when the epistle was written, 
we have no historical means of ascertaining. It is certainly a very pos- 
sible case, that, at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, 
the church at Cesarea might have been principally made up of Jews; or 
at least have contained a majority of members, who were Hebrews. Or, 
there may have been more than one church at Cesarea, (a thing alto- 
gether probable ;) and the Jews there, who were such uncommon zealots 
for the law, might have established a religious community of their own, 
separate from that of the Gentile Christians, whom the former would 
regard with an eye of jealousy, if not of distrust. If the author of our 
epistle designed it for the good of the Hebrews in general, he would have 
written just in the manner which he has adopted, whether the church 
whom he addressed contained some Gentiles or not. 

Upon the whole, it is a plain case, that confident and positive asser- 
tions in regard to any one particular church, cannot be made with pro- 
priety. The most which I would say here is, that more reasons seem to 
offer themselves in favour of the supposition, that our epistle was origi- 
nally sent to the church at Cesarea, than in favour of any other place. 
I cannot, therefore, but regard it as a probable event. 


| 


| 


ANTIQUITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE, 63 


§ 12. Antiquity and canonical authority of the epistle. 


Its antiquity may be established by evidence internal and external. 
The allusions made to the temple service, in the epistle itself, necessarily 
imply that this service was then performed, when the letter was written, 
Heb. ix.9. ‘* Which [former tabernacle with its services] was a signi- 
ficant emblem in respect to the present time; iz which gifts and sacri- 
fices are offered, that cannot render tranquil the conscience of him who 
performs this service.” Again, in chap. vill. 4, 5. the writer says, ‘‘ For 
ii he [Jesus] had performed his service on earth, then he could not be a 
priest; seeing there are priests who, according to the prescription of 
the law, perform their service in a tabernacle which is merely a copy of 
the heavenly one.” Both of these passages clearly imply, that the 
temple rites were then performed, at the time when the writer composed 
our epistle. 

Now, as the whole temple service ceased, of course, with the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, in A. D. 70, it is clear that our epistle must have 
been written before that period; and consequently it belongs to the 
apostolic age. 

Another argument also in proof of this is, that the particular views 
which the epistle throughout gives of temptation to apostacy, are 
evidently grounded on the then existing rites of the Jewish temple- 
worship. The state of feeling among the Jews at large, (which resulted 
from strong attachment to these rites, and the zeal with which their 
views of these things were maintained,) and their extreme jealousy 
of every thing which had a tendency to diminish the supposed importance 
of their ritual, together with the imposing splendour and magnificence 
of the Levitical ceremonies, as then practised, all concurred to tempt 
those Hebrews who had embraced Christianity, and renounced the com- 
mon views of their countrymen, to relapse into their former views and 
habits. The shape in which this whole subject presents iiself, in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, manifestly implies that the Levitical institutions 
were then in full vigour. Of course, the age in which this was the case, 
must have been the apostolic. 

It is equally plain, that our epistle was written in the latter part of 
the apostolic age. Those whom it addresses are represented as having 
been Christians long enough to be qualified, had they been properly 


64 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


attentive to their duty in learning the principles of Christianity, to 
become teachers of it, v.12. The former days, when they were first 
enlightened, are spoken of by the writer, x. 32, in distinction from the time 
then current. They are addressed also as having witnessed the death 
of their first teachers, xii. 7; and their then present teachers are com- 
mended to their affectionate regard, xii. 17. All these circumstances 
imply that some time must have passed away since the gospel was first 
preached among them, and they had been converted to Christianity, In 
other words, the epistle must have been written in the latter part of the 
apostolic age. The specific year I shall not here endeavour to ascertain, 
as it will hereafter be a subject of inquiry. 

With the internal marks of antiquity, exhibited by the epistle itself, 
corresponds the external testimony that can be gathered respecting it. 
Clement of Rome is the most important witness that can be adduced, in 
regard to the point before us. His epistle to the Corinthians, (commonly 
named his first epistle,*) is the most considerable, certainly the most 
important and best authenticated, relic of ecclesiastical antiquity, which 
belongs to the first century of the Christian era. According to the 
general voice of the ancients, the author of this espistle is the Clement 
whom Paul mentions as one of his fellow-labourers, and as having his 
name written in the book of life, Philip. iv. 3. He was the third 
bishop of Rome, according to Ireneeus (contra Heres. m1. 3,) Eusebius 
(Hist. Ecc. 11. 13. 15. 21. 34. 38,) and Jerome (Viri Illus. v. Clemens.) 
In the name of the church at Rome, and as their bishop, he addressed 
an epistle to the church at Corinth. This epistle, as all agree, must 
have been written within the first century; probably about A. D. 96. 


* It is called first, because there is a second, which bears his name, and which has 
usually been printed in connexion with the first. The first was so greatly esteemed by 
the churches in the early ages, that it was read publicly to Christian assemblies, in like 
manner as the books of the New Testament. It is very often cited, with great enco- 
miums, by nearly all the Christian fathers! It has been assailed, indeed, by a few 
critics, in modern times; and what relic of antiquity has not? It, doubtless, like 
most ancient books, has suffered somewhat in regard to the purity of its text, by fre- 
quent transcription, and by negligence. But, on the whole, it is a venerable and a 
precious relic of the primitive age of Christianity; and it is very generally admitted to 
be such.—The second epistle is quoted by none of the early fathers; and it differs in 
style and method so much from the first, that there can scarcely be a doubt of its 
spuriousness, Vide Clem. Rom. edit. Wotton p. cevr, 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE, 65 


Several critics of high reputation are disposed to assign to it a much 
earlier date. For example, Pearson, Pagi, Dodwell, Wake, and Le Clerc 
date it at a period antecedent to the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e 
before A. D. 70. If their opinion be correct, the testimony of 
Clement’s epistle will be still stronger in proof of the antiquity and 
authority of our epistle to the Hebrews; for this testimony, in such a 
case, must have been given within some eight or ten years after our 
epistle was written, and during the apostolic age. But be this as it may, 
I am willing to assume the latest date, which can with any show of pro- 
bability be assigned to Clement’s epistle, viz. A. D. 96; for this will be 
only about thirty years after the epistle to the Hebrews was most pro- 
bably written. 

It will be seen, in the sequel, that the testimony of Clement will serve 
to cast light upon the two points of inquiry which constitute the ob- 
ject of the present section, viz. the antiquity and the authority of our 
epistle. 

I shail first exhibit the evidence that Clement has quoted this epistle, 
and then subjoin some remarks on his testimony. I enter into the 
examination of this matter the more formally and fully, because of the 
important bearing which the testimony of a writer so early and respect- 
able as Clement must evidently have upon the authority of our epistle, 
and indirectly upon its origin; and also because the subject has been, 
(at least, so it seems to me,) imperfectly treated, and passed over with a 
slight examination, by nearly all the critics whom I have had an oppor- 
tunity to consult. 

It is a singular circumstance, that no book of the New Testament 
should have been so frequently quoted by Clement, as the epistle to 
the Hebrews. That such is the fact, any one may satisfy himself, who 
will take the pains to examine his quotations as referred to in Wotton’s 
edition of this author, or the detail of them as exhibited by Lardner, 
Credibil. of Gosp. Hist. 1. p. 49. seq. 

The quotations made by Clement from the epistle to the Hebrews may 
be arranged under four different classes ; viz. 


F 


66 


§ 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


Passages in which the exact words, or nearly so, of the epistle are quoted. 


HEBREWS. 
No. l. 


I. 3.°Oc Gy aratyacpa rife ddéne 

ecceesseee 4. Tooovrw xpeirrwy 
la ~ > la a“ 

yevopevoc THY ayyédwy bow diago- 
pwrepov Tap’ avrove KexAnpovdounkev 
ovopa. 

7. Aéyer 'O roy rove ayyédove 
avrov vevpara, Kat rove NELTOUpyovE 


avrou wupoc pddya. 


, x if ae ~ 
5. Tive yap eime more tév ayyé- 


> N 
Awy* Yidc prov ei av, Eyw ohpepov 





YVEYEVYNKA CE 5 
13. IIpoc riva o& rev ayyéhwy 
eipnxe more’ KaOou éx dekidy pov, 
ev of ~ ‘ > ‘ e , 
Ewe av OG rove ExOpove cov UmomodLov 


TW@Y TOOWY COV; 


No 2. 


Heb. vi. 18..... év oi¢ advvarov 


Wevoacbat Ocdy.. see 


No. 3. 


Heb. xi. 37..... epimOov év 
pnrwralc, év aiysioug déppact. 


No. 4. 
Heb. x. 37. "Ere yap puxpoy door 


cid Le) if ef ‘ > ~ 
Goov, 0 Eoxopevoc Heer Kat ov ypovtele 


CLEMENT. 
No. IF 


Cap. 36. “Oc dy dravyacpa rife 
, ? ~ , , 
peyadoovrye aiTov, TocovTw peiswv 
éo s. e aN ef 8 7 ov 
tly dyyédwy Oow, dtapopwrepov dvo- 
pea KexAnoovounke. 
Téyparra yap otrwo: ‘O roy 
‘\ ~ 
Tove ayyédove avrov mvevpara, 
~ X\ ~ 
Kat Tove detroupyove avrov mupd¢ 
proya. 
’ \ 6e ~ en ° ~ ef cy 
Emi 6€ r@ vig abrov, oUTwe eizev 
e , A ex ad ‘ ca XN > \ r 
0 deomorng’ vidg pov ei av, éyw on- 
pepov yeyevynka oe. 
\ Ld 4 AY > 
eeeekae madi Eyet mpOC avTor* 
KaOov ék deka pov, Ewe Gy 0G Tovg 
> » e / ~ ~ 
éxOpove cov tromddwuy trav moddy 


cou. 


No. 2. 
Cap. xxvli..... ovd&y yup adv- 
vaTovy Tapa TO OQ, ci pu) TO Wev- 


coac@at. 
No. 3. 


Cap. xvil. oiriwee év déppaci 


aiyelo. Kat pnwraic weptemarnoar. 


No. 4. 
Cap. xxiii... ..cvveryaprupovone 
Kal rij¢ yoagite’ Ore raxy Heer Kal ov 
KOVEt. 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 67 


HEBREWS. 


CLEMENT. 


EI: 


“assages containing the sentiment, with more or less contraction of the expression, or 


an exchange of the original word for a synonymous one. 


NOE oe 


Heb. iv. 12.......Kal xpiruxoc 


, / \ 3? ~ , 
evOupioewy Kal Evvouwv Kapotac. 


No. 6. 
Heb. xi. 5. Miore:’Evoy pereré0n, 


TOU ju) deity Oavaror. 


7. Iioree yonpariabetc Noe. 

8. Ilioree Kxadovpevoc *ABpaap 
e Lier 2¢ ~ ’ \ , 
tmjKovoey éekeNOeiy eEic Tov roror, 


K. T- A. 


31. Hiorec ‘Pad % aéprn ov ov- 
varwrETo ToIc areOijoact, deLapévn 


Tove KaTaokdrove per’ Eiphync. 


No. 5. 


Cap. Xxi.....ovdev AeAnOev av- 
AS ~ > ~ 3 ~ 9 >\ ~ 
Tov TaY EvvoL@y Hay, ovde THY Cva- 
Noyiopay wy roovpeba. 
(Again, near the end)...... 
épevyytic yap éorw éyvowy Kat 


évOupjoewr. 
No. 6. 


Cap. ix. ....’Evay, 6¢ év traxon 
OCikatog evpeBeic pereréOn, Kal ov~ 
evpéOn avrov Oavaroc. 
oe ee NW miaTOc EUpEDEle ws eee 

Cap. x. ’ABpadp ...... morc 

e la > ~ e \ e la , 
evpéOn Ev TO adroy UryKoov yevecOat 
~ Ce ~ ~ - ae 
Tolc pHpace Tov OEov, ovroc Oe’ bra- 
kone ébnAOev ex Tile yijc, K. T. X. 
Cap. xi. Ara ciorw kat prroee- 


viay éow0n “PaaB h répyn. 


lil. 


Passages which are a paraphrastic imitation of the episfle to the Hebrews ; or in which 
the style or phraseology of this epistle is more or less exhibited. 


No. 7. 
Heb. xi. 36—39. “Erepor dé éu- 


Taltyp@v Kat pactiywy meipay =da- 
Pov, ere O€ deopay Kal ¢udakije. 
"EXOdobnoay, éexpicOnoay, éreipac- 
> , , > , 
Onoav, év ddvy paxaipac anéBavoy 
eee -Kal oUTOL TavTEC praprupnOérTEc 


bia rije wicrewe. 


Nos 72 


Cap. xlv. (‘Eyktqrere cic rac 
x 4 > ~ La , 
yoagac rac adnOeic pyoee TrvEdparoc 
TOU dyioV......0U yap EvphcErat Ou- 
, > , > A e , 
kalove aroBeBAnpévove, ard doiwy 
avopév.) "Edw Onoav dixator, adN 
bro dvdpuwr" évedudaxicOnoay, adv 

e ay ) , > , e A 

vr0 avociwy’ EiQacOnoay v70 Tapo- 
vopnwy? amexravOnoay bro roy jua- 
pov Kal acucov CHrov avernpdrwr 
Tatra macyortec evkralwe ijveyKav. 


Zz 


68 § 12. ANTIQUITY 


HEBREWS. 
No. 8. 


Heb. xii. 1, 2....... rocovrov 
EXOvTEs TEPLKELMEVOY Hputy vépoc pap- 
TUPWY se 220k Vroporvijc TpeXwpEV TOV 
mpokelpevov piv aywva. apop@yrec 


sic TOY Tic TloTEws ApyNyoY, K.T. Ar. 


No. 9. 


Heb. xii. 5—11. (comp. Prov. 
ili, 11, 12.)....vié prov, pay odvyw- 
pet matdetac Kupiov, pnoe éxhvov 7° 

J ~ > , e > > - 
avrov éedeyxopevoc. “Ov yap ayara 
Kupwoc, wadever, praoreyot o& mayTa 

ev “ la e ‘\ 
vidy dv mapadéxerat....Ol pev... 
KaTa TO Cokovy avrole émaidevoy 
[ipedic,] 6 6& [Ode] eri 70 cupgépor, 
gic 70 peradafety Tig WytdrnToc avrod. 


No. 10. 
Heb. iv. 14, seq.”Exorrec ody dp- 


xXlepéa péyav «... ‘Inoovty .... ov 
Exopey ApxXiepea pr Ovvapevoy oup- 
mwabijoae ratc aabeveiarc Hudy ..ee 
MPOTEDXWpPLEDA weveee WA sees KAPLY 


eVpwpev eic EvKAaLpOY BonBear. 


AND CANONICAL 


CLEMENT. 
No. 8. 

Cap. xix. Io\A@y ody Kat peya- 
wv kal évddgwy peretknporec Tapa- 
devryparwy (Wotton, rpafawy) érava- 
dpdpwpev éxi rov e& apxiic mapa- 
dedopévoy tly Tie eiphyne oxdrov Kat 
areviowpey sic TOY marépa, K.T. dr. 


No. 9. 
Cap. lvi. ’AvadaBwpev madeiay 


x49 


ep 
ov yao ayara Kipue raidever, pac- 


ovdetc Opeiher GyavaKrely ..06 


2 


~ \ , ev a“ , 
Tiyot O& mayTa vidy by Tapadexerat 
“ ’ \ a We: \ 
coeeee yao ayabog wy maever 0 
Oedc sic TO vouBernOrjvar Hpac dua 


~ e , , J ~ 
Tie Oolac maEelac avrov. 


No. 10. 


Cap. Xxxvi..... Ijcovv Xpuorov 
TOY apxiEpéa THY TpoTPopey Tpoy, 
\ 7 A X ~ > 
TOV mpoorarny Kat GonOoy rijc acbe- 
veiac Hypa’ Cap. lvill..... dua Tov 
apxlepéwe Kal mpoorarov joy I. 


XPLGTOU wercce 


V's 


Passages similar to texts in the Old Testament, but which Clement probably quoted 
from the epistle to the Hebrews. 


No. 11. 

Heb. iii. 2. Tuordy dvra rp rol- 
foarte avrov, we Kat Mwioije év bdo 
TP Ok avTov. 

5. Kat Mwiioije perv muoroc év Op 

T@ oikp avrov, we Oeparwy. 
No 12. 

Heb. xii. vi. “Ov yap ayarg Kt- 

ptoc, x.7. AX. Vide supra, under No. 9. 


Noy ie 

Cap. xvil. Mwiojjc muordc év bdo 
T@ OlKM avTOU EKAHON 
€ t - 


Cap. xlill. ‘O praxdpwog reardc Oe- 
parwy év Op 79 olky, Mwiiogjec. 
No. 12; 
Cap. lvi.....0” yap ayara Ku- 
ploc, ke T. A. 


* 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 69 


I shall now subjoin a few remarks on the preceding view 

No. 1. Some parts of the passage, here extracted from Clement, may 
be found in the Old Testament as well as in the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
but other parts of it are appropriate only to the latter. This, as well 
as the application itself of the passages taken from the Old Testament, 
shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Clement must have had the 
first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews distinctly in his mind, when he 
wrote the passage which is presented in the comparison. 

That Clement, in his letter, has added more of the second psalm than 
is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, forms no argument that he quoted 
directly from the second psalm, rather than from Heb.i. .In his view, 
clearly, the whole of the second psalm applied to the Messiah. To the 
quotation made from it by the writer of our epistle, Clement adds two 
other verses, in order to amplify and confirm the view of the subject 
which he has introduced. 

To this statement we may the more readily accede, since it is often 
the manner of Clement, in making his quotations of Scripture, to inter- 
mingle passages taken from different parts of the Bible, without any 
notice, or any sign of transition from the one to the other.* 

No. 2. That Clement does not introduce this passage with the for- 
mula of a quotation, is no proof that it is not one; for he often extracts 
passages both from the Old and the New Testament, without using any for- 
mula of quotation, or without any intimation that he is about to quote. 
The singularity of the expression itself, exhibited in No. 2, and the fact 
that it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, are the grounds on 
which I should rest the probability, that Clement had in his mind dis- 
tinctly the manner of expression in our epistle, when he wrote the sen- 
tence presented in the comparison. 

No. 3. This is so plainly and exactly a quotation, of an expression 
sui generis in the epistle to the Hebrews, that to doubt whether it be in 
reality copied from this epistle, would be to doubt whether Clement has 
quoted in any case, except where he has given express notice of it. But 


* E. g. Clement, (Epist. c. 50,) after quoting from Isaiah xxvi. 20, adds another 
quotation (from what book it is uncertain) without any note of transition. So in cap. 
lili. after quoting Deut. ix. 12, seq., he goes on to quote other passages, from different 
places, without any notice of transition. And so, frequently, in his epistle, where he 
"venees together various quotations, 


70 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


a doubt of this nature can never be cherished by any one who has read 
Clement’s epistle, and examined the method of his quotations. 

No. 4 appears to me a case of quotation from Heb. x. 37, which has 
the formula of appeal to the Scriptures prefixed, cuveripaprupovene rite 
ypagijc. The passage quoted is found, in the sense in which it is used 
by Clement, in the epistle to the Hebrews. Another passage from which 
we might suppose the quotation to be taken, viz. Mal. iii. 1, is quoted 
at length, in immediate connexion with the one exhibited in the table, 
plainly because Clement deemed it to be a parallel one; so that we can- 
not choose the passage in Malachi, as the source of his quotation. There 
remains, then, besides Heb. x. 37, only Hab. il. 3, which affords any 
special resemblance to the quotation of Clement. But the passage in 
Habakkuk relates wholly to a vision, or prophecy, and not to a person, 
as in Heb. x. 37; and to a person, Clement evidently applies it. The 
probability is then altogether in favour of the supposition, that the pas- 
sage is quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews. 

No. 5 is so alike in Clement and in our epistle, I can hardly persuade 
myself that the expression in the latter was not in Clement’s mind, when 
he wrote the passages here extracted from him. Still, it does not appear 
to be a case, I readily concede, on which a conclusion respecting actual 
quotation or imitation can be built with entire certainty. 

No. 6, although it does not exhibit an exact use of the language in 
our epistle, contains, in my view, one of the most convincing proofs of 
quotation. The arrangement of these examples together, as in the epistle 
to the Hebrews; the manner of characterising their actions or their 
rewards, viz. that they flowed from faith; and the almost exact simi- 
larity of ideas, in cases where these are peculiar to the writer of our 
epistle, all combine to prove (I had almost said) the certainty that 
Clement had Heb. x1. before his eyes, or at least before the eye of 
his mind. In what other part of Scripture are these examples so 
arranged together? And where else is found such a method of pre- 
senting them to our view? In fact, imitation thus exact, of a passage 
so peculiar in its style and manner, is better proof that the passage was 
before the eye of Clement, or at least in his mind, than exact coincidence 
of language in some cases would be. In a short passage, such coin- 
cidence might be accidental, arising merely from similarity of views or of 
idiom. But accidental coincidence as to the mode of reasoning and 
representation here, seems to be fairly out of the question. 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 7) 


No. 7 seems to be a kind of parody upon the corresponding passage in 
the epistle to the Hebrews, or paraphrastic imitation of it. The extra- 
neous matter which Clement inserts, has evident reference to the preced- 
ing context in his own epistle. 

No. 8. In Clement’s epistle, the passage is in the sequel of the 
sentence, extracted in No. 3. Now, as the writer of the epistle to the 
Hebrews has exhibited the same order of thought, Heb. xi. 37, and xii. 
1, 2, is it not probable that Clement had the corresponding passages of 
that epistle in his mind, when he wrote the one presented by the com- 
parison? The similarity of costume in the two passages can hardly fail 
to strike the attentive reader. 

No. 9 may be somewhat doubtful, because it may have arisen from 
the passage in Prov. iii. 11. The whole strain of reasoning upon it, 
however, inclines me to believe, that Clement had in his mind the corre- 
sponding passage in the epistle to the Hebrews. 

No. 10 exhibits an appellation of the Saviour, (apycepéa) which is 
peculiar to our epistle. There is, moreover, an evident similarity between 
Christ as duvvapevoy oupradijoa raic acbeveiatce judy, Hebrews iv. 15, and 
Clement’s zpoorarny cai BonOdr rij¢g aobeveiac hyar. 

Nos. 11 and 12 cannot, of course, be much relied on in the present 
case; as no decisive reason can be offered, to prove that Clement must 
have quoted from our epistle. From the tenor of the passages, and the 
context, I am inclined to believe that he did; but I cannot attach much 
weight to this supposition. 

In order .now to make a fair estimate of the comparison which has 
been made, and the weight of evidence to be adduced from it, it is 
necessary that we should have correct views of the manner of Clement’s 
quotations in general, and the principles on which they are grounded. 

I have examined the whole of this writer’s quotations, both from the 
Old and New Testament, with a view to ascertain, whether any thing 
can be determined as to the authority which he attaches to them, from 
the manner in which they are made; and also to ascertain, by a view of 
the whole, what his particular manner of quotation is. The result of this 
examination I will now briefly state. 

(1.) Clement names no book of either Testament. He appeals, 
indeed, to the words of the prophets; but their names he evidently uses 
to indicate their persons, and not (as we do) the titles of their books. 
The importance of this fact, considered in connexion with the same 
usage by the writers of the New Testament, in respect to a critical 


72 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


examination of the genuineness of the titles prefixed to the books of 
Scripture, has been already adverted to in the preceding part of this 
introduction, § 10. p. 35. 

(2.) Clement habitually appeals to the books of either Testament, 
with or without a formula which gives notice of a citation. He often 
prefixes yéyparrat, Néyer, eiwev 6 Oedc, phoww 6 Adyoe &ytoc, and the like 
formulas, to his quotations. But nearly as often, particularly in the 
New Testament, he cites without any notice or formula at all; evidently 
taking it for granted that his readers will at once recognise the quotation, 
without any pains on his part to designate it. 

(2.) I find no satisfactory evidence of quotation from the Apocrypha, 
or any apocryphal writer now known. The instances of quotation from the 
Wisdom of Solomon (chap. XII. xxXvII.,) alleged by Wotton, are plainly 
too far fetched to appear probable; and the reference to the book of 
Judith, (c. tv. of Clement,) is only a reference to the story concerning 
her, which Clement evidently believed. There are, it is true, a few 
cases of apparent quotation, either from books not found in our present 
Scriptures, or from traditionary accounts; just as there are some quota- 
tions of this nature in the New Testament, which are not found in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. But there is no satisfactory evidence, that Clement 
received any of the known apocryphal writings, either of the Old Testa- 
ment or the New, as canonical. 

With these facts in view, I cannot well account for it, that Eichhorn, 
in his introduction to our epistle, should say, when speaking of the 
weight of Clement’s testimony in respect to its canonical authority ; 
<¢ Clement indeed acknowledged the existence of the epistle, because he 
has borrowed whole passages from it. But still, he no where cites it 
formally; as is the case, when he makes use of the other canonical 
writings of the New Testament. How much then can be educed from 
him, in respect to the credit to be attached to this epistle? Would he 
not have formally cited it, and named Paul as the author of it, if he had 
regarded it as canonical, and as coming from Paul ?” (Einl. § 271.) 

From this he concludes, that we can merely prove the existence of it 
in Clement’s day; but, nothing in respect to the credit which he at- 
tached to it. 

But, as we have already seen, Clement is just as far from formally 
citing the other books of Scripture, as he is from formally citing our 
epistle. Often as he has quoted Paul’s epistles, he never once appeals 
to his name, except in connexion with the mention of the first epistle to 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 73 


the Corinthians, where he could not well avoid it. With this exception, 
he has not even once named a single book of the New Testament, copi- 
ously as he has every where drawn from it. 

Allowing, then, that Clement has not formally cited the epistle to the 
Hebrews, it amounts to no proof that he has not used it as Scripture. 
But we are not obliged to allow so much. In No. 1. above cited, from 
Heb. i. 7, it appears that Clement has prefaced his quotation with 
yéyparrat yap o’rwe ; which is one of the highest appeals that he makes 
to the volume of inspiration. This very passage, too, is produced by 
Eichhorn as an example of Clement’s quoting from our epistle; but the 
yéyoarrae yap is wholly overlooked. 

There is another instance also in Clement (c. xxtII.,) where the 
quotation from Heb. x. 37 is quite probable, and which is prefaced by 
ovverytaprupovane Tic ypadic; supra No. 4. If No. 7 be regarded, also, 
as a paraphrastic imitation by Clement of the corresponding passage 
in the epistle to the Hebrews, then is this a third direct appeal to 
the divine authority of our epistle; for he introduces the passage 
by saying, ‘‘Search in the Scriptures the true sayings of the Holy 
Spirit.” 

Thus much for the allegation of Eichhorn, that Clement has no where 
cited our epistle formally, as he does the canonical Scriptures. But 
further. The conclusion which this writer draws from the assumed facts 
stated by him, is as erroneous as the facts themselves. One might 
indeed have expected, in a matter so weighty as that of Clement’s 
testimony, and one in which the evidence is so accessible, that so mani- 
fest an error in regard to Clement’s mode of quotation should not be 
committed. Nothing can be more evident to a critical reader of Clement, 
than that no conclusion can be drawn from the mode of his quotation, 
against the supposition that he believed the book quoted to be canonical. 
The fact that he appeals to our epistle more frequently than to any other 
part of the New Testament; that he no where appeals, so far as we can 
discover, to any apocryphal writings of either Testament; above all, that 
he appeals to our epistle by quoting passages from it in order to confirm 
and impress the truths which he is inculcating, and appeals to it in the 
same way and for the purposes as he appeals to the most acknowledged 
parts of Scripture ; the fact, too, that Clement was the companion and 
fellow-labourer of Paul, and was also bishop of the church at Rome, the 
metropolis of the world; that he wrote in the name of the church there 


74 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


to the church at Corinth,* and that he addressed to them passages from 
the epistle to the Hebrews, in such a way as to imply that this epistle 
was already well known and familiar to them; these facts, taken all 
together, make on my own mind a strong impression, that the evidence 
is as clear and convincing, that in the age of Clement our epistle was 
considered a part of the sacred writings of the Scripture, as it is that any 
other book of the New Testament was considered as a part of them. 

Such was the impression which in ancient times Eusebius had, from 
reading Clement’s epistle. Sneaking of monuments preserving apostolic 
doctrines, he says, [’Emarodj] Kai rot KAjpevrog év rh avwpodoyoupern 
Tapa Tao, Hy &k TP0CWTOU Tic ‘Pwyaiwy ékxAynoiac 7H KopwPiwy dterv- 
m@aaro éy % THe Tedc “EBpatove roANa vojpara wapabelc, ion 6& Kat 
avronekel pyroic tioly & abrijc xpnodpevoc, capécrara Tapiornow Ore po} 
vedv Urapxer TO ovyypappa Obey Eixdrwe Edokey, aro Toic NowTolg éyKa- 
TarexOijvar yoappace Tov aroa7dXov, that is, ‘‘ [We count also the epistle] 
of Clement, acknowledged by all, which he wrote in behalf of the church 
at Rome to the church at Corinth; in which, exhibiting many of the 
sentiments of the epistle to the Hebrews, he makes use of some expres- 
sions taken from it in the very words of the epistle, by which he most 
clearly shows that this epistle is no recent composition ; whence it seems 
likely, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle - 
[Paul.]” Hist. Ecc. 11.38. I am not able to see how one who reads 
critically the epistle of Clement, can avoid the conviction that he 
has quoted it as Eusebius avers, and that he has appealed to it as 
Scripture. 

Of other writers, belonging to the first half century after the apostolic 
age, we have but few remains; and most of these are imperfect. Some 
near resemblances to passages in our epistle to the Hebrews may be 
found in them; but after a careful examination of them, I have not 
thought them sufficiently definite and important to become the subject 
of discussion here; I shall merely subjoin them, and leave them to the 
consideration of the reader. 


The following are the passages usually compared. 


Heb. m1. 5. Mwiiofjc pév mo- Barnabas, Epist. c. xIv. Mwi- 
roc év OAM TH OlKw adrov we Oepa- oie, Oepatwy @y, eEafev [VizZ. * 


* C.i. ‘A iekAnoia rov Ocod 4 mapotkotoa ‘Pwyny, TH ixkAnoig «, 7. A. is the 
commencement of Clement’s epistle, 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


mwy.... + 6. Xpworoe be we ‘vluoe 
éxt Tov vikoy aro, ov oiKdg Eoper 
pete. 

Heb. x. 25. © My 


e ~ 
movreg TV Exitvvyaywyy eEduTwY 


éyxaranet- 


cka0we e0og rTLolv. 


Meb. xi 170... . peravotac 
yup réroy ovxX EvpE. 

Heb. Iv. 12. .... Kperixoeg év- 
Oupjcewy Kat évvoWwy Kapdiac 
. ee + OUK EoTe KTiotc Adan} EVwW- 
mlov aUTOU. 

Heb. vi. 20. "Incotc ... . cto- 
KLEPEVS YEvoOuevoc, COMP. Wiles ae 24s 


‘iv. 14. 


Heb. xi. 9. Avduyaic TOLKL- 


= A , A , 

Aaig Kat Eevacc poy mepupeoece 
eeseee EV lc OVK WhEAHOnoAY ot 
WEPLTUTH TUITE. 

Heb. x. 28, 29. ’AOerjoae ric 
, ri ieew \ ’ ~ Oe 
vopov Mwicéwe xwpic oixtippay ext 
é ‘ a” ‘ , ’ A 
voly i} Tpit pdprvoww aroOvioxec’ 

, , ~ , 
Iloow Coxeire xelpovoc abwOhoerat 


e 


’ A en ~ ~ 
TUywolac, O TOY voy TOV OEOU KaTa- 


, 
waTnouc, Ke T. AY 


75 


ruc mAaKae. | Auroc €é 6 Kops 
uty ESwxev, cig Adov KAHpovopiac, 
Kanirss Ns 

Barnabas, Epist. c. tv. Non 
separatim debetis seducere vos, 
tanquam justificati. 

[Old Latin version; the original Greek 
here being lost. ] 
Simil. 
igitur non est locus penitentiz. 


Hermas, viit. 8. His 

Polycarp, Epist. c. Iv..... dé- 
AnBev avrov over, ore Noyropwr 
ovre évvowwy, oUTE TL THY KOUTTOV 
Tig Kapciac. 

Polycarp, Martyr. ...... dea 
Tov aiwviouv cpxtepewe “Incov Xpio- 
zov; (quoted in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 
p. 133. D.; so, also, in the Latin 
version of Polycarp, published by 
Usher.) Add, from the same ver- 
sion, C. XII. .... ef ipse sempi- 
ternus pontifex, Dei filius, Christus 
Lardner, 11. 830. 


Ignatius, Epist. ad Magnesios, 


Jesus. 
c. vill. My aAdvac0_e rate Erepo- 
Py tc’ cs , ~ 
ostarc, pce puOsvpaciv Toig ma- 
Nawic dvwperteow ovow. 

Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. c. xvi. 
oJ ‘\ e ‘ 7 
Fi d€ of rove avOowmlvoug otkoug 
S f y 
cuapOeiporrec, Oavarw Karacuddor- 
rau’ Tdow paddov ot THY Xororow 
> , , > ~ 
ExkAnolay vobevery = ErrtyelpovTEC 
aiwviay ricovat Cékny, UTEP Ne aTau- 
4 A , e , e rf 
poy kat Oavaroy Urépewev 0 Kuowog 


’Inoovc, Kk. tT. Xr. 


The passages may be found in Cotelerius; or in Lardner, Cred. i. 


pp. 43, 44, 131, 217; ii. 830; i. 177; edit. 1734. 


Einleit. § 271, note 2. 


See also Eich. 


Several of them, (specially one from Polycarp, 


naming Christ the eternal high priest,) look very much like a quotatzan 


76 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL AUFHORITY. 


But in a matter so weighty, it is not best to place very much dependence 
on them, as the similarity may be accidental. 

Justin Martyr is the first considerable writer of the second century, 
whose works are come down to us. He was born about A. D. 103, and 
flourished about A.D. 140. In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, the 
following passage occurs. ‘‘ This is he, who, after the order of Melchi- 
zedek, is king of Salem, and eternal priest of the Most High,” p. 341. 
He elsewhere calls Christ, aidvorv rov Ocov iepéa kat Baowréa, Kat 
Xpuoroy péddovra yivesBa, p. 323. c. In another place, he says of 
Christ, Kai dyyedoc dé ckadeirar Kat azdorodoc, Apolog. i. p. 96. D; 
which name (azdoroXoc) is given him only in the epistle to the Hebrews. 

In addition to the facts already stated, respecting the early existence 
and credit of the epistle to the Hebrews, it should be noted, that the 
Peshito, or old Syriac version of the New Testament, made, in all pro- 
bability, during the second century; and the old Latin versions, made 
during the same period, and probably within the first half of it; both 
contain the epistle to the Hebrews, Bertholdt Eimleit, p. 637, seq., 717, 
seq. This is a fact of very great importance; for these versions were in 
common use and authority among the churches of the East and West. 
It is not pretended that either of these versions, at this period, comprised 
any book which is now known to be apocryphal. Undoubtedly they did 
not comprise any which were then deemed apocryphal. Here then is 
palpable evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews was widely circulated 
among Christians a short time after the apostolic age. In the west, the 
Itala and old Latin versions comprised it; in Greece, or the middle 
region, the church at Corinth are addressed by Clement as being familiar 
with it; and in the east, the Syrian church, wide spread as it was, com- 
prised it in their canon. 

From near the close of the second century onward, the history of the 
canonical credit of our epistle intermingles itself with the controverted 
question, whether Paul was the author of it. On this account, I shall 
not separately pursue the history any farther at present, as it must 
necessarily be investigated in the course of discussing that important 
question which still remains for consideration. 

The sum of what has been shown, under our present head of discus- 
sion, is, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, probably but a short time before this event; that in about 
thirty years, at most, it had acquired such currency and credit, that the 
church at Rome, the metropolis of the world, in a letter addressed by 


§ 13. WAS PAUL THE WRITER ? 77 


their bishop to the church at Corinth, made repeated appeals to it as a 
book of divine authority, and in such a way as to imply a knowledge and 
acknowledgment of it, by the Corinthian church, similar to their own ; 
that Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, has evidently appealed to its con- 
tents as sacred; that about this time, or not long after, it was inserted 
among the canonical books of the New Testament, by the churches of 
the East and the West; and that, consequently, it must have had, ata 
period very little after the apostolic age, a currency and a credit not 
at all, or at most very little, inferior to that of other acknowledged 
books of the New Testament. Better evidence than this of early and 
general reception by the churches, it would be difficult to find, in respect 
to a considerable number of books in the New Testament; with Jess than 
this we are obliged to content ourselves, respecting several of them. 

But admitting the early existence and general credit of this epistle, 
there still remains the most difficult of all the questions which have been 
raised respecting it, ‘‘ Who was its author? Was it Paul, or some other 
person?” This very important question deserves, and must receive, a 
particular and thorough discussion. 


§ 13. Was Paul the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews ? 


From whatever source the epistle to the Hebrews is derived, every 
reader of it must perceive that it comes from a man of deep feeling, of a 
benevolent heart, of extensive knowledge, and of views, in respect to the 
spiritual nature of Christianity, as exalted as can be found any where in 
the New Testament. Every attentive reader of the Mosaic law, more- 
over, must feel, that the epistle to the Hebrews is the best key to unlock 
the treasures which are secreted there; and that it affords us a disclosure, 
in respect to the general nature and object of the Jewish dispensation, 
which Christians much need, and which can no where else be found in a 
manner so full and satisfactory. 

But this, however correct or important it may be, cannot eis the 
fact that Paul wrote the epistle. We must not virtually assume this 
position from reasons a priori, or because we may wish it to be so. It 
is as uncritical to believe without any evidence, as it is to reject evidence 
when it is offered. It is uncritical also to establish (or rather attempt 
establishing) a position that concerns a simple matter of fact, by any 
reasoning a priort. To investigate the present question in a becoming 
and candid manner, we must lay aside prejudice either in respect to the 
affirmative or negative of it; and also our previous opinions, which have 


78 § 13. WAS PAUL THE WRITER ? 


been derived merely from education, and have not been established on 
the basis of proper evidence. 

The epistle to the Hebrews has no subscriptzon. Consequently, we 
are left either to conjecture who the author was, or to gather it from 
evidence external or internal. Conjecture, in respect to an epistle, the 
claims of which are supposed to be authoritative, can give no real satis- 
faction to the thorough inquirer. Circumstantial evidence is that, then, 
to which we must necessarily resort, since the signature of the author is 
wanting. 

I make these observations here, because it has seemed to me, that very 
much more has been demanded by some critics, in order to prove that 
Paul wrote this epistle, than the nature of the case admits, or even 
requires. Their demands would amount to nothing less than the signa- 
ture of the writer himself, or direct testimony that he wrote it, given by 
witnesses then present. 

In the investigation of the question, ‘‘ Who was the author of an 
anonymous letter that is almost 1800 years old, written in an age and 
country where literary records (if they at all exist) are accidental and not 
designed ?” how can it be justly required, that proof of a direct, unequi- 
vocal, and positive nature should be produced? Where is the anony- 
mous letter of antiquity, that could ever be assigned to any particular 
author, if demands such as these were made in respect to it ? 

The question is not, whether the point in dispute can be rendered 
certain by plain and indubitable testimony, (for then how should it ever 
have been disputed ?) but, all things considered, whether there is not a 
probability in favour of supposing Paul to be the author of it—a pro- 
bability deduced from evidence external and internal, which is sufficient 
to quiet our reasonable doubts, and to command our prevailing belief. 

It is not modern critics only, who have been divided on this question. 
The ancient Christians early differed in opinion about it, for several 
centuries; the Latin, or Occidental Christians, after the second century, 
generally rejecting it from their canon, as they did not reckon it to be 
Paul’s; while the Greek, or rather the Oriental, Christians generally 
received it as coming from the hand of the apostle Paul. 

I shall divide the evidence, in respect to this question, into external 
and internal. By the former, I mean whaicver can be gathered from 
the Christian fathers, or ancient writers, or the tradition of the churches, 
respecting the epistle; and by the latter, the characteristics of the 
epistle in respect to sentiment, style, and diction, compared with the 


TESTIMONY OF THE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH. 79 


acknowledged letters of Paul, and also certain facts which are adverted 
to in the epistle itself. 

The great deficiency of genuine early Christian records, for many 
years after the completion of the New Testament, is a fact acknow- 
ledged and lamented by all who study either the early history of the 
church, or that of its sacred books. A few fragments only we have, 
of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Papias, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, 
and some others; in most instances too short, and too imperfectly 
preserved, to afford any strong ground of satisfaction to the critical 


Inquirer. 
§ 14. Testimony of the Alexandrine Church. 


The evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews was early recognized 
as one of the sacred books, has been already exhibited. The first 
testimony that we have respecting Paul’s being the author of the epistle, 
is that of Pantenus, the head of the celebrated Christian school at 
Alexandria in Egypt, who flourished about A. D. 180. This testimony 
was inserted by Clement of Alexandria, the disciple of Panteenus, and 
his successor in the famous school just mentioned, in a work of his 
entitled ‘Yzorutwcetc, Institutions, or Sketches. This work is now 
lost; but Eusebius has preserved an extract from it, in his Ecclesias- 
tical History, lib. vi. c. 14. Panteenus himself was the most learned 
Christian of the age in which he lived, and one whose weight and 
authority in the churches was very great. 

Clement, in the extract preserved by Eusebius, is endeavouring to 
assign a reason, why Paul had not subscribed his name to the epistle to 
the Hebrews. After giving his opinion in regard to this point, he adds, 
‘« As our worthy presbyter [so he usually calls Panteenus] has already 
said, Since the Lord himself was sent by the Almighty as an apostle to 
the Hebrews, Paul being an apostle to the Gentiles, on account of 
modesty, does not subscribe himself as the apostle to the Hebrews, both 
out of reverence for his Lord, and, because being a preacher, and an 
apostle to the Gentiles, by a kind of supererogation he wrote to the 
Hebrews.’’* 


* “Hon O& We 6 paxdpuoc EAeye TpEcBirepoc, éret 6 Kbpwoc amécrodoe dv Tod Trav- 
ToKpdropoc anearadyn mpd¢ ‘EBpaiovg, did perpidrnra 6 Maddoc we ay tig ra LOvn 
drecradpivoc obk éyypaper Eavrov ‘EBpatwy améarodov' bid re THv mpo¢ Tov Kiptov 
Tiny, Oud TE Td ex TEpLOVaIag Kal Toig ‘“EBpaiorc éxioréANey, LOvay KhovKa bvra Kai 
anéorodov. Lib. vi. 14. 


80 § 14. TESTIMONY OF 


Two points are equally clear from this testimony ; the first, that Pan- 
teenus entertained no doubt of Paul’s being the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews, the whole passage implying as well as asserting this; the 
second, that still, either from the suggestions of his own mind, or from 
those made by others, objections had been raised against this opinion, 
because the epistle lacked the usual subscription or inscription of Paul. 
The attempt to solve these doubts, necessarily implies that they had 
been suggested from one of these sources; but from which, we cannot 
tell with any certainty. 

I am very ready to allow, with some recent critics, that the attempt at 
solution is but a poor specimen of critical reasoning, and is insufficient 
to accomplish what Pantznus designed to accomplish. For how was it 
necessary, as he seems to suppose, that Paul should have subscribed 
himself an apostle to the Hebrews, if he had put his name to the 
epistle? If he declined doing this, ‘‘ because his Lord and Master was 
the apostle of God to them,” as Pantenus says, still he might (as on 
other occasions he actually does) have called himself an apostle of Jesus 
Christ ; or he might, as he twice does, have called himself a servant of 
Jesus Christ, Phil. i. 1, Tit. i. 1; or he might, as he twice does, have 
simply written his name Paul, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1. Why should 
he have been any more diffident with respect to doing this, in the present 
case, than in any other ? 

As to his diffidence arising from being an apostle to the Gentiles, 
which made him, as Panteenus supposes, decline subscribing his name 
in an epistle to the Hebrews, so much weight cannot well be attributed 
to it. The writer of our epistle has told the persons addressed, of his 
circumstances, and of his companions ; he has also asked their prayers, 
that “‘he might be speedily restored to them ;’ 


’ 


all which necessarily 
implies, that his name was not designed to be wholly concealed, and 
could not be so concealed, from those whom he directly and 9riginally 
addressed : so that neither of Pantznus’ reasons for Paul’s declining 
to subscribe his name, appears to have any considerable weight in it. 
Eichhorn and Bertholdt, it must be acknowledged, have refuted the 
good father’s critical reasoning, on which I have just animadverted ; 
but they should not (as they appear to have done) substitute this for a 
confutation of his testimony also. Bertholdt moreover maintains, that 
Panteenus has simply expressed an opinion, that Paul wrote the epistle 
to the Hebrews; an opinion merely his own, and not founded on any 
tradition. This he endeavours to prove, by the following argument :— 


THE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH. 8] 


“‘ It is clear, that Panteenus’ expressions imply the existence of persons, 
in his time, who maintained the opinion, that Paul was not the author 
of the epistle to the Hebrews. Now, if general tradition maintained 
that he was, how could there be any such persons? For at this time 
it was easy to trace a tradition of this nature up to its primary source.” 
Einleit. p. 2918, 

But has there ever been a period, since the Gospels or Epistles were 
written, in which more or less of them were not discarded by some, and 
doubted by others? Have there not been some such men as Ebionites, 
Alogi, Marcionites, and others of a similar character, in every age, and 
almost in every country? And can it be a valid objection to a book, 
or to testimony respecting it, that such men have rejected it, or doubted 
it? If so, then the whole New Testament must be given up at once; 
and the effort to maintain its genuineness, abandoned as a task utterly 
hopeless ; for what part of it has not been discarded by some of these, 
or such like, sectarians ? 

Does Pantzenus, I ask, tell us whence the doubts in question arose ; 
whether from his own mind, from heretics, or from the members of the 
catholic church? Not a word of this. Be it, then, that they came 
from whatever quarter you please, or from all quarters; the weight of 
his testimony is increased, rather than diminished, by the objections. 
For how does the case now stand? Pantenus had objections to the 
apostolic origin of the epistle suggested, by members of the catholic 
church, by heretics, and by his own mind; yet such was the strength of 
his conviction, arising from the evidence opposed to these doubts, that he 
hesitates not in the least to consider it as an established point, that Paul 
was the author of this epistle. He speaks of it as being certainly his. 

Now, whence did Panteenus derive such a conviction? Pantznus, 
who was at the head of the first Christian school in the world; who 
resided near Palestine, and where constant communication was all the 
time kept up with that country; Pantznus, who lived within a century 
after the apostolic age. It cannot be shown, nor in any way rendered 
probable, that he had any favourite or peculiar sentiment to be sup- 
ported by the epistle to the Hebrews, which was the reason why he 
defended its apostolic origin. I am aware of the allegation made by 
some, that the epistle to the Hebrews was already received in the churches 
as one of the sacred books; and that, as some doubted respecting it, 
because it wanted an apostle’s name to sanction it, Panteenus, in order 
to save its credit, and defend the custom of the churches in receiving it 

G 


82 § 14. TESTIMONY OF 


as canonical, assigned the reasons produced above, why Paul did not 
subscribe his name to it. But is not this, after all, conceding the very 
point which it is meant to deny? ‘‘ The epistle to the Hebrews 
was already received by the churches; therefore Pantzenus defends it!” 
Indeed? And how came it to be received ? Whence this general credit 
already obtained; a credit so strong, a custom of reception so general, 
as to inspire Panteenus with entire confidence in its canonical authority, 
and raise him above all the objections which had been suggested? And 
how comes it, that no epistles should have made their way into the 
canon, amid all the conflicting opinions, and various apocryphal and 
supposititious writings, of the early ages of the church, but those which 
either bear an apostle’s name, or were by general consent assigned to an 
apostle? This is a fundamental question, in respect to the great subject 
of the authority of our New Testament canon. It is an articulus stantis 
vel cadentis auctoritatis, in respect to it. And the answer to this 
question plainly is, that the catholic church in the primitive age, taken 
as a body, were governed by the maxim, that no book or epistle could be 
properly regarded as canonical, except such as was written by an apostle. 

I am far from denying, that particular churches, and even particular 
regions of country, did, near the close of the second century, and after- 
wards, regard as sacred, some of the apocryphal books of the Old 
Testament and of the New. The quotations from them by the Christian 
fathers, is conclusive evidence of this. But, then, such books, for the 
time being, were of course estimated as holding a rank entitled to the 
credit of inspired books. And in respect to the apocryphal writings of 
the New Testament, it is clear that they were regarded, (where they 
were admitted as canonical,) as either coming from the hands of 
apostles, or as having been written with their approbation, or under their 
inspection. Nothing can be more evident, than that there was a con- 
stant verging of the church, as a body, toward the point of limitation, 
in respect to canonical credit, that has just been stated. That some 
churches and persons should have committed mistakes, respecting the 
extent to which the principle adverted to would carry them, is not at all 
to be wondered at, considering the state of literary knowledge at that 
period. But that such mistakes were not committed by the predominant 
part of the churches, is demonstrated from the state of the New Testa- 
ment, ever since the earliest period; the received books of which are 
only those, which were regarded as being of apostolic origin, or revision, 
and generally believed to be so. 


THE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH. 83 


Such being the fact, we may ask, and we ought to ask, How came the 
epistle to the Hebrews into the canon; so that Clement of Rome in 
the very first century, and Panteenus in the next, refer to it as Scripture ? 
Why, plainly, because an apostolic origin was attributed to it. Pan- 
teenus regards this as certainty ; and Panteenus says that the apostle who 
wrote it was Paul, dv re rd... . roig ‘EPpatore ’emisédXevy [Iladdor. | 

I readily concede, that he is not a witness contemporary with Paul. 
But he is a witness, (and one of the very best the age afforded, in which 
he lived, and was so distinguished as a man of knowledge) of what the 
opinion of the churches then was. Is it not evident, that in the passage 
under consideration, he is defending the wsual opinion of the churches, 
in regard to our epistle ; and that he is not merely delivering his own pr¢- 
vate sentiments ? The manner in which he speaks, plainly declares this. 

Moreover, that he did speak the opinion which was prevalent and 
general at this period, is rendered still more probable by the fact, that 
at least as early as the time in which he lived, probably earlier, the 
Syriac translation in the East, and the old Latin version in the West, as 
we have already seen, were completed ; both of which went into general 
use in those countries, and both of which comprise the epistle to the 
Hebrews. In regard to the Syriac, it may be further noted, that while 
it was made too early, as it would seem, to comprise the 2d epistle of 
Peter, and the 2d and 3d epistles of John, (which for various reasons 
came later into circulation than the other epistles,) it still comprises the 
epistle to the Hebrews. Are not these facts, then, when taken together, 
good evidence, that the credit of this epistle was early and widely dif- 
fused, and that it was regarded at a very early period, by the great body 
of the churches, as of apostolic origin? To which of the apostles it was 
assigned by current belief, and of course by current tradition, Panteenus 
informs us. 

Let it be distinctly noted, that all this took place within about a 
century after the apostolic age, (and probably less ;) ‘‘ when tradition,” 
as Bertholdt says, ‘‘ might be easily traced back to its origin.” Does 
not, then, the testimony of Panteenus, whom Photius (Cod. 118) repre- 
sents to be not only a hearer of those who had seen the apostles, but of 
some of the apostles themselves, supported as it is by concurrent testi- 
mony of the canon of the churches in the East and in the West, amount 
to satisfactory evidence, in regard to general ecclesiastical tradition at 
the time in which this father lived? And if so, does not this plead 
strongly for the probability, that Paul was the author of the epistle ? 

«6 2 


84 & 14. TESTIMONY OF 


I am unable to distinguish the testimony in question of Pantzenus, 
from that of other writers, whom Bertholdt quotes as good support for 
the genuineness of other books of the New Testament. How many 
hundred testimonies has he quoted, where the witness does not say 
whether he delivers his own opinion, or recites tradition! Yet Bertholdt 
takes these, and such like testimonies, as legitimate evidence, when he 
sets out to establish the genuineness of any books of the New Testament, 
or of any ancient writing. Why, then, should he resort to the extra- 
ordinary, the unsupported, (I may say improbable,) supposition, that 
Panteenus has, in the case before us, only delivered his own private 
opinion? Even if it were so, the question, ‘On what was the opinion 
grounded? what induced him to believe so?’ would present serious 
difficulties, in respect to the suggestions which Bertholdt has made; as 
I have already shown. 

At any rate, the principle which Bertholdt assumes here, would render 
it utterly impossible ever to establish the genuineness of any of the New 
Testament books; and, I may add, of any other ancient book. A prin- 
ciple fraught with such consequences, cannot, either with propriety or 
safety, be admitted into our critical investigations. 

The importance of this discussion, which treats of testimony so early 
and respectable, in regard to the subject in question, will, I hope, be a 
sufficient apology for the length to which it has been protracted. 

Pantenus was succeeded, in his school, by the celebrated Clement of 
Alexandria, near the close of the second century. Clement, as he tells 
us in the first book of his Stromata, (p. 274. Lardner, Cred. ii. 462,) 
had travelled in Greece, Italy, the East, and Egypt, in quest of know- 
ledge, and employed masters in all these countries. With Pantznus he 
settled down in Egypt; and he represents this teacher, though last in 
time, as first in merit. He compares him to the Sicilian bee, that had 
gathered flowers from the prophetic and apostolic meadows; and repre- 
sents him as filling the minds of his hearers with pure knowledge. 

Clement, then, was well qualified to judge what was the general usage 
and tradition of the churches, in respect to the canon of Scripture ; as 
he had traversed a great part of the regions where churches were planted. 
His testimony (extracted from a work of his, entitled ‘Yrorumécecc,) is 
preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecc. Hist. 1. vi. c. 14.‘ In his book,” 
says Eusebius, ‘‘ Clement affirms that Paul 1s the author of the epistle 
to the Hebrews; and that, as it was addressed to Hebrews, it was origi- 
nally written in their language, and afterwards translated by Luke, for 


tHE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH. 85 


the use of the Greeks ; which is the reason, why the colouring of the style 
is the same in this epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles. The reason 
why Paul did not affix his name at the head of it, probably is, because 
the Hebrews had conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious 
of him. Very prudently, therefore, he did not place his name at the 
head of the epistle, so as to divert them from the perusal of it.* 

Eichhorn and Bertholdt have endeavoured to show here, also, that 
Clement’s testimony is only his own private opinion, or at most, that of 
his master, Panteenus. Eichhorn attacks the apology which Clement 
makes for Paul’s omitting to prefix his name to the epistle ; and seeming 
to triumph over this, he dismisses the whole of the testimony along 
with it. Bertholdt has pursued a course somewhat different. Panteenus 
he represents as giving one reason why the name of Paul is omitted ; 
Clement, another. This contradiction, he avers, proves that neither 
Panteenus nor Clement rested on tradition as their support, but only 
followed their own conjecture. 

This conclusion is somewhat singular. What is the point in question ? 
Simply, whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Pantzenus says 
that he did; Clement asserts the same; both, as it appears, without 
any doubt or hesitation in their own minds. How came they by this 
confidence? Clement derived it, says Bertholdt, from his master Pan- 
teenus. But from whom did Pantznus derive it? Whence did he get 
so much confidence respecting this point, as to overcome ail the obstacles 
thrown in the way of such a belief? He appears to have been a man 
of great sobriety, knowledge, diligence, and excellence of character. He 
was no innovator; nor does it appear that he had any pride of specu- 
lative opinions and conceits to foster. But because he answers the 
doubts, that had been suggested against Paul’s being the author of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, in one way, and Clement in another, “ this,” says 
Bertholdt, “ is contradiction ; and it shows that neither of these fathers 
grounded his opinion on tradition, but on his own conjectures.” Con- 
tradiction in what? Are these two fathers agreed on the great point in 


* "Ey ct raic ‘Yroruricect .... Tv Tedc ‘EBpatoue éxtorodry Matdov pév elvac 
gnot yeyoapOat Cé ‘EBeaiorg ‘EBpaikh wv Aovedy 62 giroripwe peOeppnvedcavra 
éxCovvat roig “EMAnow. “OOev tiv abriv ypira ebpiccesOar card rhv éppynvetav 
Tare THC érioroANe Kai THY wpdkewy. M1 wpoyeypagOae ce 70, IlavX\oe azdaro- 
Aoe, sixérwe’ ‘EBpatore yap gnow ixisriddwv mooAnww eingose Kar’ abrov, Kai 
Uronrsvovow adroy, suverde Tavu ok iv doyh aréorpeber abrov¢ rd dvoua Ocig.— 


Lib. vi. 14. 


86 § 14. TESTIMONY OF 


question, viz. whether Paul was the author of the epistle? This is con- 
ceded. Where, then, is the contradiction? ‘They are not agreed how 
the doubts raised against it should be solved.” What follows? ‘ Why, 
as Bertholdt avers, ‘‘ that they grounded not their opinions on tradition.” 
That is, (if this have any appropriate meaning,) that tradition had not 
brought down to them the mode of solving these doubts ; since they were 
not agreed in the mode of solving them. But what if tradition had, as 
is most probable, handed down to them neither doubts nor solutions ; 
and that the solutions they proposed were of newly-raised doubts, which 
about this time began to appear in some of the Occidental churches— 
solutions drawn, as I would most freely concede, from their own personal 
views, rather than from tradition; what, I ask, has the manner of solvy- 
ing these doubts to do with the main point at issue? Nothing at all; 
and be it, that Eichhorn has triumphed over both the good fathers, Pan- 
teenus and Clement, in showing the incompetency of their reasoning to 
solve the doubts then raised, it leaves their testimony, as to the great 
point at issue, quite untouched. 

I am not disposed, however, to concede so much to Eichhorn’s rea- 
soning, in respect to the assertions of Clement. If Paul did write the 
epistle to the Hebrews, and direct it to a church in Palestine, every one 
acquainted with his history knows, that the Hebrews in that country, 
at least very many of them, were affected towards him as Clement has 
represented them to be; and this might be a proper and adequate rea- 
son, for not setting down his name at the head of his epistle. 

«« But Paul,” says Eichhorn, ‘‘ has not shrunk from openly professing 
his name on all other occasions.” This may be true. But to what 
other part of the church did he write, circumstanced as the Jews of 
Palestine were? Does not a prudent man change the mode of his 
address, as circumstances may require ? 

<¢ But, after all, the author has not concealed himself. At the close 
of the epistle he has developed circumstances which must certainly make 
him known.” I grant it, in respect to the church whom he immediately 
and primitively addressed ; but the case would not be the same in 
respect to other churches, for whom, also, there can be but little doubt, 
the epistle was ultimately designed. At least, those who read it, would 
first have been subjected to the influence of its reasoning, and its elo- 
quent and powerful remonstrances, before they would come to make the 
inquiries about the author, suggested by the circumstances at the close. 
May not the author, who could write such an epistle, well have trusted 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : CLEMENT. 87 


to its power in disarming prejudices, which the appearance merely of a 
name at the outset might have heightened? And might not Clement, 
who travelled through the East, and over so many countries, have thus 
feecome acquainted with the manner in which the difficulty was com- 
monly solved, which he proposes? This solution, although Eichhorn 
thinks it to be so incompetent, is still a much more probable one than 
that of Pantenus; nay, I must think that it is in itself by no means 
destitute of probability. How can it be shown in any way to be incon- 
gruous, that such a reason should have influenced Paul to withhold his 
name ? 

But further, Bertholdt says, ‘“‘ Another proof that Clement did not 
ground his testimony on tradition, is, that he declares the epistle to have 
been originally written in Hebrew; and that Luke translated it into the 
Greek language ; and thus he merely undertakes, in his own way, to 
account for the diversity of the style from that of Paul, and its similarity 
to that of the Acts of the Apostles ?” 

Be it so then, for the sake of argument. But still, what is the amount 
of this? Nothing more than that Clement undertakés to meet an objec- 
tion, raised from the style of the epistle; and to show how this style 
could be somewhat diverse from Paul’s, and yet the epistle derive its 
origin from that apostle. How can this determine, that Clement did not 
ground his belief of Paul’s being the author of the epistle, on the tradi- 
tion of the church, rather than on his own conjecture ? 

In fact, that Clement should have remained entirely unmoved in his 
opinion, by all objections made to Paul’s being the author of our epistle, 
proves just the reverse of what Bertholdt has endeavoured to establish. 
It proves, beyond all reasonable controversy, the strength and constancy 
of his opinion, which triumphed over all such obstacles; and which to 
do this, must, as it seems to me, have been supported, in his own mind, 
by the general voice of the churches among whom he had travelled. 

But further to invalidate the testimony of Panteenus and Clement, 
Bertholdt suggests, that ‘‘ they were inclined to favour the epistle to 
the Hebrews, on account of the Alexandrine spirit which reigns in 
it,’ [he means the spirit of allegorizing and finding secondary senses to 
language ;] and ‘to establish the credit of a favourite letter, they 
attributed it to Paul, being supported in this by the apparent similarity 
which it has to his writings.” 

Now, since this is altogether gratuitous conjecture, it might not 
improperly be answered by conjecture that such was not the case. I 


88 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


will suggest, however, that it is by no means certain, either that Pan- 
teenus or Clement were natives of Alexandria. The probability is, that 
they came there partly as learners, but principally as teachers; and that 
their opinions were not formed merely by the fashion of interpreting the 
Scriptures at Alexandria. Besides, what ground is there to suppose that 
these fathers, conscientious and deeply imbued with reverence for the 
Scriptures as they were, would have been persuaded, by attachment to 
the Alexandrine spirit of allegory, to foist a book into the canon of the 
New Testament as Paul’s, when they had no evidence on which to 
ground such an opinion? And how comes it, that at this very period, 
this same epistle was inserted in the canon, in the Jtala of the western 
churches, and the Peshito or old Syriac version of the eastern ones ? 
Did Panteenus and Clement effect this ?. They had no concern with the 
management of either of these churches. Christians then in the East 
and West, far distant from Alexandria, did ascribe canonical authority 
to this epistle; and if they did so, there 1s, of course, good reason to 
believe, that they ascribed the epistle to an apostle as the author. What 
probability can there be, then, that Clement and Pantzenus ascribed this 
epistle to Paul, merely on the ground of their own private opinion or 
local prejudices ? 

The sum of testimony for the second century has now been presented. 
Its importance is greatly magnified by its proximity to the time when the 
epistle was written, and when tradition respecting it might be traced 
back, as Bertholdt avers, without much difficulty, by a sober and inte- 
rested inquirer. That at the close of the first century, the epistle to the 
Hebrews was not only extant, but in full credit as a canonical writing 
at Rome, we have seen in the examination of the testimony of Clement 
of Rome. That at the close of the second century, it occupied a place 
in the canon of the eastern, the western, and the intermediate churches, 
follows from the testimony that has now been examined. That Paul — 
was the author of this epistle, appears to have been the firm belief of 
the most celebrated theological school then existing; and that this 
belief harmonized with that of the churches in general, who required 
evidence of apostolic origin or approbation, in order to entitle an epistle 
to a place in the canon, seems quite probable, and is contradicted by no 
circumstances with which we are acquainted. 

We may now advance to the former part of the third century, and 


examine a few of the principal witnesses. 
The celebrated Origen, second to none of the fathers (except Jerome) 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 89 


as a critic, and in general learning superior to them all, the disciple and 
the successor of Clement at Alexandria, is, in all respects, a most 
important witness to be examined. He spent his life in the study and 
explanation of the Scriptures; and his testimony in regard to the canon 
of Scripture, at the time when he flourished, (A. D. 220,) is of greater 
weight than that of any other individual of the same period. 

The most explicit testimony of Origen is, that which Eusebius has 
preserved, Ecc. Hist. vi. 25; being an extract from one of Origen’s 
homilies on the epistle to the Hebrews. The passage runs thus in Euse- 
bius : ‘‘ In respect to the epistle to the Hebrews, Origen decides thus in 
his homilies upon it. ‘The character of the style of the epistle to the 
Hebrews has not the unpolished cast of the apostle’s language, who pro- 
fesses himself to be a man unlearned in speech, i. e. in phraseology. 
Besides, this epistle, in the texture of its style, is more conformed to 
Greek idiom ; as every one must confess, who is able to distinguish differ- 
ences in style. Moreover, the ideas in this epistle are admirable, and 
not inferior to those which are confessedly apostolic; and this every one 
must concede is true, who has attentively read the writings of the apos- 
tles.’ A little further on he adds, ‘ If I were to give my opinion, I should 
say, the phraseology and the texture belong to some one relating the 
apostle’s sentiments, and, as it were, commenting on the words of his 
master. If any church therefore hold this to be an epistle of Paul, let 
it recetve commendation on account of this; FOR IT IS NOT WITHOUT 
REASON (ov eixj,) THAT THE ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN 
(rupadedwxact, have had a tradition) AS BEING OF PAUL. Who wrote 
the epistle, [ypaac, penned it, or committed it to writing,] God [only] 
knows with certainty ; but the report which has reached us is, that some 
affirm it to be written by Clement, bishop of Rome; and some, by Luke, 
who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.’’”** Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 25. 
Lard. iv. p. 235. 


* 1s... TeEpi Tig Tobe ‘EBpatove imicroXjije év rate sic abriy priate Taira 
CratapBaver’ Ore 6 yapaKri}p Tic éEwe Tipe modc ‘EBpaiovg imtysypappévng ére- 
aroXic ovK Exe TO tv Noy Wwridy Tov aroaTdXov, dpooyHoavrog EavTov iduTnY 
tivat Tp NOywp, TouréoTe TY dodo. "AAA toriv 7 éExtsrod) curPéce Tig AEEEwe 
“EMAnviKwripa, Tag 6 imiorapevoc Koive dpacewy Crapopac duoroyyoat adv. Tladw 
TE av bru Ta VoNnpaTa Tie émucToXHe Oavpacia tort, Kai od CevTépa THY ATTOGTONKOY 
opooyoupévwy ypaparwr? Kai Tovro ay cupdnoar eivar adnbic Tac 6 Tpoctywy 
Ti} dvayvuce TH arosTONUKG. Totzow pe’ treoa imidépse Neywv" "Eyw 88 azo- 


, ” ipo m4 aig ye , ~ ee ‘ 
dawopevoc eizouw dy, bre Ta piv vornpara Tov amooro\ov borin 1) OF Ppaotg Kai 


90 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


This passage has been appealed to for different purposes, by writers 
of different sentiments ; by some, in order to show that Origen doubted, 
by others to show that he did not doubt, about Paul’s bemg the author 
of the epistle in question. Omitting an account of what others have 
said, let us endeavour to elicit the sentiments of Origen, by consider- 
ing this passage in connexion with other passages to be found in his 
writings. 

(1.) It is plain that Origen felt the force of the objection against the 
authorship of Paul, drawn from the style and manner of the epistle, in 
the same way as his preceptor Clement had before done; and to meet 
this objection, he suggests a reason similar to that which Clement had 
suggested. Clement says, that the epistle was first written in Hebrew, 
and then translated by Luke into Greek; and thus he endeavours to 
account for the supposed diversity of style between this epistle and those 
of Paul. But Origen does not appear to have at all supposed that it was 
written, at first, in Hebrew. He supposes it to have been for substance 
delivered, dictated, or spoken by the apostle, and penned down by some 
one who used his own diction, commenting, as it were, on the words of = 
his master. In this way, the sentiments are regarded as apostolic and 
authoritative, while the dzction is considered as arising from one not an 
apostle; and thus the full credit of the epistle is maintained, while the 
objection to this credit, drawn from the diversity of style, is apparently 
removed. 

(2.) It should be noted, that Origen does not say, whether the objec- 
tions against the epistle to the Hebrews being the production of Paul, 
arose from his own mind, or from the allegations of others. Most pro- 
bably from both sources. He appears to have had a full conviction, that 
there was a diversity of style in it; and to remove the difficulty about 
the credit of the epistle, which arose in his mind from this cireum- 
stance, he resorted to the supposition just mentioned. We can have 
no reasonable doubt, that at this time there were some, who alleged 
that this epistle did not come from the hand of Paul; as Pantenus 


% obvOEctc, ATouynpovetcayvTic TWO Ta aToTTONKA, Kai worEDEi TYOOypagy- 
cy , ’ € 4 ~ 5 , ” ye ? Xx , ” , ‘ ’ 
gavrTog Ta eionpéva 7d Tov StdacKadov. Ei reg ovv éxkAnoia Exet rabryy THY émt- 
4 LZ UZ ” ’ , . > a ~ > ‘ 8508, « ’ ~ ” 
rodyv we Iatvdov, airy eddokusirw Kai éxi rovro. Ov yap Eiki ot apyator dv- 
épec we Taddov abriy rapadeddxact. Tic 6& 6 yodpag Tv émtorodjy, TO piv 
aAnOéc Oede oldev’ 7 O& ele uae POdcaca toropia, b7d. TWWY piv EYOvTWY, Ore 
KAnung 6 yevopmevoc érioxorog ‘Pwpaiwy Eypabe rijy ixtoroAnv' vx Tivwy C&, OTe 


Aoukdg 6 ypavac rd Ebayyé\uoy Kai rag pager. Ecc. Hist. vi. 25. 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 9] 


and Clement had, before this, made an effort to remove objections 
against it. 

(3.) The very manner in which Origen attempts to remove objections, 
shows that he gave full credit to the apostolic origin of the epistle. 
“The thoughts,” he avers, ‘‘ are apostolic, and worthy of an apostle ; 
but the diction is derived from another.” And when he says, “ It is not 
without reason that the ancients have handed it down as belonging to 
Paul ;” and then adds, “‘ but who wrote it, God only knows with cer- 
tainty, some attributing it to Luke, and some to Clement :” 
be plainer, than that he means here to suggest, that he considers it to be 
uncertain who penned it, i. e. reduced tt to writing ; for he had just 
asserted that the thoughts were suggested by the apostle, while the 
diction arose from him who reduced them to writing. To suppose (as 
has been supposed) that Origen means to assert, that God only knows 
from whom the sentiments of the epistle sprung, or who the author was, 
in this sense, is to suppose that Origen has directly contradicted himself, 


nothing can 


in the very same paragraph. Therefore, 

(4.) When-Origen says, that some attribute it to Luke, and some to 
Clement; the probability clearly is, (from the connexion in which this 
stands,) that he means to say, ‘‘ Some attribute the penning or writing 
of it down, to the one or the other of these persons.’’ If this be so, (and 
it appears to be very plain that it is,) it only serves to show, that Origen 
did not consider the tradition about Luke and Clement as well estab- 
lished; and especially so, as the traditionary reports were not agreed 
respecting the amanuensis or recorder of the epistle. It is posszble, 
I acknowledge, that Origen means to say, that some attributed the real 
authorship to Luke or Clement; although I cannot think that this 
opinion has any probable support, in the passage of Origen now under 
consideration, if it be explained by any just rules of interpretation. 

(5.) It is clear that Origen ascribes his own belief, and the belief of 
the churches of his time, that the epistle was Paul’s, to ancient tradition. 
«« If any church receive this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this; 
for it is not without reason, that the ancients (oi apxaior) have handed 
it down (wapdedwxacr) as Paul’s.” Here two things are asserted ; first, 
that the tradition of its being Paul’s is well grounded, in Origen’s view, 
ovK Eiki) Tapacecwxact; and secondly, that it is an ancient tradition, for 
ot apyatoe dvdpec have so thought. 

I cannot well account for it, that Eichhorn and Bertholdt have kept 
out of sight this direct testimony of Origen to the tradition of the churches. 


92 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


Eichhorn has indeed quoted it (§ 271,) but made no comment upon it; 
while Bertholdt has broken the paragraph into two parts, and quoted 
what precedes the clause in question, in one place (p. 2944,) and that 
which follows it in another (p. 2956;) while he has wholly omitted the 
clause under consideration. The opinion of Pantenus and Clement, 
that Paul wrote this epistle, had previously been ascribed by these critics 
either to their own conjectures, or to the influence which the views of the 
church of Alexandria had over them, in respect to this subject. Origen 
also is represented by them, as struggling between his own convictions 
and the prejudices of the times, in respect to the point in question, and as 
falling at last upon the conjecture, that ‘‘ the sentiments are the apostle’s, 
while the diction is another’s,” in order to reconcile his own views, and 
the current prejudices of the Alexandrine church. These critics have 
been very careful to render prominent the expression of Origen—who 
wrote it, God [only] knows, report attributing it to Clement and to 
Luke ; and they have quoted this too, without adverting at all to the 
evident meaning of it, which is, ‘“‘ who penned or wrote it down is uncer- 
tain, report attributing it to different men; using the expression just as 
if Origen had simply said, ‘‘ who was the author of the epistle, God only 
knows.”’ See Berth. Einl. § 648. Eichh. § 271. Besides this, Bertholdt 
represents Origen as asserting, that an ancient tradition, brought down 
even to his time, attributed the authorship of the epistle to Luke (p. 2955,) 
or to Clement (p. 2958;) but that Origen, believing neither of these 
ancient traditions, declared that ‘‘ God only knows who composed it.” 
One cannot help remarking, how leaning towards a favourite hypothesis 
will help to obscure one part of testimony, and make another to stand 
out in relief. That of apyaior &vopec have not, as Origen asserts, without 
reason declared the epistic to be Paul’s, this critic has passed over with 
profound silence. On the other hand, “‘ it is an ancient tradition,” he says, 
<< propagated down to the time of Origen, that either Clement or Luke 
composed it.” But Origen himself does not say this. His words are 
simply, ‘* Who wrote it [i. e. penned it down,] God knows, 7 0 Eic Tadic 
¢Jdcaca ioropia, but a report has come to us, that it was either Clement 
or Luke.” Now, where is the ancient tradition, brought even down to 
Origen’s time, ascribing the composition of the epistle to two different 
men, neither of whom Origen believed to be the author? So far from 
this, Origen says not a word here of ancient tradition ; nor even of cradi- 
tion at all. He does not say that either ioropia wadata, Or tapacoctc 
mada, brings down this report; but simply % cic Huade POaoaca taropia, 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 93 


i. €. report has come to us ; or, it is reported; there is a report ; report 
says—that either Luke or Clement wrote it. Now, he might have used 
the same expression, I freely concede, if such report had been ancient ; 
but he might use the same, too, in reference merely to the reports of his 
day; at which time, no doubt, various difficulties were raised, in some of 
the churches, respecting the Pauline origin of the epistle. Certainly, 
then, Bertholdt has no right to represent Origen in the manner he does, 
as averring that ancient tradition assigned the authorship of the epistle 
to Luke or to Clement. 

Indeed, the language which Origen employs, in this case, would seem 
to be designedly different from that which he employs in the sentence 
wholly omitted by Bertholdt, which runs thus; “ If any church holds 
this epistle to be Paul’s, it deserves commendation for this ; because ox 
elk, the ancients have handed it down to us, that it is Paul’s. Observe 
the expressions of dpyaior and rapadedmxaor, words altogether appro- 
priate to the designation of truly ancient tradition, and not to be mis- 
taken; while the report concerning Luke and Clement is announced 
simply by # etc ude pOdcaca ioropia, leaving it wholly indeterminate 
whether this report is recent or ancient ; for g9acaca surely does not 
of course designate the antiquity of the report. Why Bertholdt should 
thus magnify this part of Origen’s assertion, and wholly omit all notice 
of the other, which cannot be misunderstood, and is not liable to mis- 
construction, is best known to himself. But thus much may he properly 
said, If the testimony of the ancients (or moderns) is to be managed in 
this way, then we may assert, with equal truth, our inability to prove 
any thing, or our ability to prove aliquid ex aliquo. 

That Origen was not in the doubtful state about the epistle, which the 
critics just named represent him to be, may be clearly evinced from other 
passages in his writings, even if the one already examined were to be 
regarded as dubious. For example; Comm. on John, (ii. p. 18, ed. 
Huet.,) ‘‘ According to this, the apostle says,”* and then quotes Heb. 
v.12. That by this apostle he meant Paul, other passages in the same 
commentary clearly show. E. g. “In the epistle to the Hebrews, the 
same Paul says,’’+ p. 56; again, ‘* Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews,’’t 
p. 162. In his book against Celsus, he says; ‘* For it is written by 


* Kara rovro ¢now 6 amdaroXoc, brt, K. T. X. loc. cit. 
+ Kai tv ry zpdc “EBpaiove, 6 abric Matddg ones, w. r. A. loc. cit. 
yD) &t Madoc, tv TY mpo¢ ‘EBpaiovg, x. r. X. loc. cit. 


94 TESTIMONY OF THE 


Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians....and the same apostle says ;’* 
and then he quotes Heb. vy. 12, Contra Cels. p. 482, ed. Bened. In 
his treatise on prayer, he quotes the epistle to the Hebrews, as an epistle . 
of the same apostle who wrote the epistle to the Ephesians, De Oratione 
i. p. 250, ed. Bened. In a homily, preserved in a Latin translation, he 
says, ‘‘ Paul himself, the greatest of the apostles, writing to the He- 
brews, says ;”’+ then he quotes Heb. xii. 18, 22, 23. _ He also appeals 
to this epistle as awthoritative, in establishing any position ; e. g. Comm. 
in John ii. 57, 58, ed. Huet. 

These testimonies can leave no doubt what the opinion of Origen was, 
as to the real authorship of the epistle, however he might account for 
what he deemed the peculiar colouring of the style. It is surely quite 
a subordinate question, Who was the amanuensis or translator of Paul ? 
The important questions are, Did the sentiments originate from him ? 
And is he the real author of them? If Origen has not developed his 
opinion respecting these questions beyond all doubt, I know not that 
it is in the power of language to do this. If he has not most explicitly 
averred, that the then ancient tradition taught this, and for good reasons, 
I am unable to conceive how he could have averred it. 

(6.) Let us ask, how far back must this testimony have gone, in order 
to be ancient in Origen’s time? Nothing can be weaker, than the 
assertion that Origen refers, in his apyato dvdpec, to Clement and Pan- 
teenus; both of whom were his contemporaries, and lived until he was 
about thirty years of age. Pantenus died about 211, as Jerome affirms ; 
Clement, about A. D. 217 or 220; and Origen was born A. D. 184 or 
185. Now, as Origen lived but little more than acentury from the apostolic 
age, nothing can be plainer, than that the ot dpyaiou &vdpec must mean, 
either those who were conversant with the apostles, or at least the gene- 
ration succeeding them. This not only confirms what I have already 
endeavoured to prove, from Clement of Rome, from the testimony of 
the Italic and Syriac versions, and from Pantznus and Clement, viz. 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was canonical in the primitive age of the 
church ; but it shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Panteenus and 
Clement believed Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, 


* Téyparra yap rapa rp aidp pay Kopw ioc ?xioré\Novre. . « . 6 O8 abrog 
- . +s Ono, Kat yeysvare xpeiav Exovrec, K. Tr. X. loc. cit. 

+ Ipse ergo apostolorum maximus... . Paulus .... dicit, ad Hebreos scribens, 
etc. Homil. III. in Num, p. 281, edit. Benedict. 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : ORIGEN. 95 


in common with the churches of their times, on the ground of ecclesias- 
tical tradition, and not from their own conceit, or their own prejudices in 
favour of Alexandrine notions. 

(7.) It appears that Origen was strongly impressed with the con- 
viction, that the style of the epistle to the Hebrews was different from 
the usual one of Paul. Yet so firm was his conviction, that the epistle 
for substance did originate from Paul, that he has not only often 
ascribed it directly to him, obiter, but given us at large his view, viz. 
that he considered Paul as the author of the thoughts or ideas. At the 
same time, he endeavours to account for it, without prejudice to this 
opinion, or to church tradition, that the costume of the epistle is not 
Pauline, by supposing a disciple of Paul to have recorded the concep- 
tions of his master in his own language. That Origen should have 
adhered to what he declares to be the tradition of the ancients, respecting 
the author of this epistle, under such circumstances, and beset with such 
doubts, exhibits, in a most striking manner, the strength of his convic- 
tions, and the weight of tradition in its favour. 

The allegation made by Eichhorn and Bertholdt, that Origen con- 
ceded the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s, from forbearance to the 
prejudices of the church at Alexandria, and out of love to the allegory 
which is in it, the credit of which he would wish to defend, has no real 
support. In regard to his prejudices in favour of the church at Alex- 
andria, we cannot suppose them to have been very strong; for he was 
banished from this place, in the midst of his public labours, when he 
was about 48 years of age; and he spent the last 22 years of his life 
principally at Cesarea and in its neighbourhood, never returning 
again to Alexandria. Yet in works, published long after he resided at 
Cesarea, he ascribes to Paul the epistle to the Hebrews. And in regard 
to the allegory of this epistle, if this were the principal reason for 
receiving it into the canon, then why did he not also receive the epistle 
of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and many other pieces of a 
similar nature, in which the ancient church abounded? We may well 
be permitted to ask, indeed, why should we ascribe any other motive to 
Origen for receiving this epistle, than what he declares to have been a 
sufficient and commendable one in the churches, viz. that the ancients, 
NOT WITHOUT REASON, had handed it down as Paul’s? 

The opinion of the church at Alexandria appears to have been uni- 
formly the same, after the age of this great man. I shall very briefly 
notice it here; as testimony later than Origen’s, from this quarter, can 


96 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


amount but to little more than proof, that the opinions of himself and his 
predecessors continued to be held without variation. 

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, received the epistle to the Hebrews 
as canonical, and as the work of Paul, about A.D. 247; as did Theog- 
nostus, probably a teacher in the famous Christian school at Alexandria, 
about 282. It was received as Paul’s by Alexander, bishop in the same 
city, about 313; by the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of the same place, 
about 326; by Didymus, master of the catechetical school there, about 
370; and by Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, about 412. 

It is unnecessary to proceed any farther on, than down to the time 
of Jerome and Augustine ; whose opinion in favour of this epistle being 
Paul’s, is universally acknowledged; and whose influence over the 
western churches occasioned the gradual, and finally the universal, 
reception of it, by all those churches in that quarter where it had been 
rejected. 


§ 15. Testimony of the Eastern Churches. 


From Egypt let us now repair to the Eastern region, and see what 
the tradition of the churches was in that quarter. 

We have already seen that Justin Martyr, a native of Samaria, quotes 
from our epistle about 140. After Justin, there were no considerable 
writers, in this part of the church, whose works are still extant, until the 
time of Eusebius. Methodius, however, bishop first of Olympus in 
Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre, seems pretty plainly to ascribe this epistle 
to Paul, about 292, Lard. vil. 261. It was probably received as such 
by Pamphylius, presbyter at Cesarea, about 294; as it stands in the 
midst of Paul’s epistles, in a manuscript copied from one of Pamphilus, 
id. vil. 325. 

But the most important testimony from this quarter, (next after that 
of Origen, who lived at a period so much earlier, and spent here the 
most important part of his life, viz. the last twenty-two years of it,) 
remains to be recited. 1 refer to the testimony of Eusebius of Cesarea, 
the well-known historian of the church, who has taken so much pains to 
collect evidence from all quarters, respecting the canon of Scripture. I 
shall produce his testimony in a collected view, in order to facilitate the 
comparison of it; and then subjoin a few remarks. 

Lib. ut. c. iii. ‘‘ Fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul’s; 
although it is proper to be known, that some have rejected that which is 
written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the church at Rome, that it is 


EASTERN CHURCHES: EUSEBIUS. 97 


spoken against, as not belonging to Paul.”* A little after this, in the 
same book, c. xxv., he reckons among the books of Scripture, which he 
calls opodoyotpevor, (1. e. not contradicted, or gainsayed, viz. by such 
authority as to create any doubts, or to any considerable extent, in the 
church,) the epistles of Paul; in which, beyond all question, he includes 
the epistle to the Hebrews; for he afterwards particularizes the epistle 
of James, of Jude, the 2d Peter, and 2d and 3d John, as those books 
which are dyriAeyopevor, i. e. called in question, contradicted.t In the 
same book, c. xxxvill., after saying that Clement of Rome had made 
many extracts from the epistle to the Hebrews, he adds, ‘‘ Wherefore, 
not without reason, this epistle is reckoned among the writings of Paul. 
For when Paul had written to the Hebrews, in their vernacular language, 
some say that Luke made a translation of it, and some, that this Clement 
did, of whom we have been speaking.t In Lib. vi. c. xx., he mentions, 
that ‘Caius, in a dispute against Proclus, held at Rome in the time of 
Zephyrinus, blames the temerity and audacity of his opponents in com- 
posing new writings, and mentions only thirteen epistles of Paul, not 
numbering that which is inscribed to the Hebrews. Moreover, even to 
the present time, this epistle is reckoned, by some of the Romans, as not 
belonging to Paul.’’§ 

In Eusebius, we meet with the first ecclesiastical writer, who has 


* Tod S& TatAov roddnrot Kai cagsic ai Oekarécoapec’ bre ye pay rivec HOETHKace 
Tiv mpd¢ ‘EBpaiouc, mpd¢ Tig ‘Pwpaiwy ExkAyoiac, wg pr) Tatdov obcav abriy ayri- 
héyecOat dnoavrec, ob Cikatoy ayvoeiv. Hist. Ecc. iii. 3. 

+ Mera 62 rabrny [sc. rv rév Mpdewy yoagry] rac Matdov caradexréov émo- 
rodag’ cic ékijc, K. T,X... «. TadTa piv éy duoroyoupévorc. Tév 6é dvrideyopévwr 
sevens 9 Asyopévyn 'TaxdBov...... Kai Iovda, ire Tlérpov Sevrépa émisodr}, Kai 
% Ovopagopévn Sevrépa kal rpirn “Iwavvov. Hist. Ecc. iii. 25. 

{ ‘Ev 7 [sc. éesdAH KAnpevtoc! rij¢ mpdg ‘EBpaiovg zodda vorjpara Tapabeic, 
70 Of kai abrodeket Pyroig teow &E adbrijs xonodpevoc, capisara mepisnow bre pm) 
veov wrapye Td cbyypappa. “Obey tixdrwe Eoev adrd roic Nowrroig éykaraXey O7j- 
vat ypappact Tov dmosédov. ‘EGpaicg yap dud rij¢ marpiov ywrrn¢ éyyodduc 
@prnKorog Tov Maddov, ot piv riv ebayyedesny Aovkay, ot 6¢ roy KAjpevra Trovroy 
adrov épunvedoa tiv yoadyy. Lib. iii. 38. 

§ "HAG OE cic Hpac Kai Tatov Noywrarov avdpdc siadoyoe, ii ‘Pwpne kara Lepupi- 
vov, mote IpdxXov rij¢ card Ppvyag aipnsewc bweppaxodvra Kexiynpivoc tv @ ray oi 
évaytTiag THY TEpi TO OUVTaTTEW KaLYde ypapac TpoTETELaY TE Kai TOApAaY emLsopiZwr, 
T&y Tov iepod aosdXov Oekarpidy pdvwy éexisohGv peynpoveder, Tv mpdc ‘“EBpatove 
pa) cvvapOpunoag raic Aoraic. 'Erei cai cic detpo Rapa ‘Pwpaiwy riot, ob vopiterat 
rov amoséXou ruyyavay, Lib. vi. 20. 

H 


98 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


designedly made out a full and regular catalogue of the canon of the 
New Testament; and who made extensive investigation, in regard to 
the opinions of the church respecting this subject. From a view of his 
testimony, collected and compared together, it is clear— 

(1.) That there were, in the East, some who doubted whether Paul 
wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; and that they appealed, in support of 
this opinion, to the church at Rome. It is clear, too, that in the time 
of Zephyrinus, (about 212,) there were persons in the Western church, 
and probably at Rome, who denied that this epistle was written by 
Paul; for Caius reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul, probably omit- 
ting that to the Hebrews. And that this denial continued down 
to the time of Eusebius, in the church at Rome, (his words are, 
xapa ‘Pwpaiwy rv, by some of the Romans,) is clearly signified by 
this historian. 

(2.) His assertion of the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
is as unequivocal and strong as language can well make it. ‘‘ Fourteen 
epistles of Paul,” (of course, the epistle to the Hebrews included, there 
being but thirteen without it,) ‘‘ are CLEARLY and CERTAINLY Paul’s, 
mpdonrot kal cageic. And again, he reckons this epistle among the books 
which are dpodoyovpevor, i. e. generally recognized, admitted. These 
declarations Eusebius makes, with a full view of the objections urged 
against this epistle by some. It is clear, then, that he did not consider 
those objections as respectable enough, or sufficiently extensive, or well 
grounded, to raise any serious doubts in his own mind about this matter, 
or to weigh at all against the current and general opinion of the church 
on this subject. Consequently, nothing can be more directly to the 
purpose, for demonstrating the strength and generality of the opiion in 
the church, at the time of Eusebius, that Paul wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews, than this testimony. For as Eusebius has been careful, even 
when asserting that the epistle is clearly and certainly Paul’s, to note 
that there are some who dissent from this opinion, and also to collect, in 
various instances, accounts of disagreement in respect to it, it may be 
regarded as quite certain, that he viewed opposition to it as neither well 
founded, nor extensive enough to raise any serious doubts about the 
correctness of the common opinion of the churches. 

(3.) It is pretty evident, that Eusebius had heard of the objections 
drawn from the style of the epistle, which Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen had before endeavoured to answer. Eusebius thinks that Paul 
wrote it in Hebrew, and says that some attributed the translation of it to 


EASTERN CHURCHES : EUSEBIUS. 99 


Luke, and some to Clement. His own opinion is, that the translation 
is to be ascribed to the latter. 

It will be recollected, now, that Origen, residing at the same place, 
(Cesarea,) had, nearly a century before, mentioned the very same report 
or tradition. The passage in Eusebius shows, therefore, the uniformity 
of the tradition ; it serves also to show, that when Origen adverts to it, 
he means to say, (as I have above supposed him to say,) that God only 
knows who penned or wrote down the epistle; not, who was the author 
of the sentiments, for these he directly attributes to Paul; just as Euse- 
bius attributes the authorship to Paul, and the dictzon to Clement. 

(4.) One thing more is evident, from the testimony of Eusebius. 
While he records, with fidelity, the fact that there were some in that 
quarter of the church who doubted the Pauline origin of this epistle, he 
tells us, at the same time, that those who did deny it, alleged the example 
of the church at Rome, in order to justify themselves in so doing. The 
necessary implication of course is, that they could not support themselves 
by any creditable example in the Oriental churches. Would they have 
made an appeal for support, to a church abroad at so great a distance, 
if they could have found it at home, and in their own quarter? Most 
surely not; for at that period, the church of Rome was inferior in credit 
to a number of other churches in the East. The very nature of this 
appeal shows, that respectable support for the denial of the Pauline 
origin of our epistle, could not be found in the East. 

Eichhorn has, indeed, cited the above testimony of Eusebius; but he 
has passed it without comment, excepting the single remark, that “the 
reason of Eusebius, for supposing Paul to have written the epistle to 
the Hebrews, was, that it was very old, and was cited so far back as the 
time of Clement of Rome ;” a reason which, if it were well founded, 
would of course make Paul the author of all very old ecclesiastical 
writings, which had been often cited, and were anonymous. 

Bertholdt has exhibited more sensibility to the testimony of Eusebius. 
He confesses that Eusebius founds his judgment, respecting the books 
of the New Testament, on the tradition of the Oriental church. The 
repeated asseverations of Eusebius as to this point, did not permit him 
to conclude otherwise; although Eichhorn has left out of sight every 
circumstance of this nature. But then, says Bertholdt, “did this tradi- 
tion go back to the apostolic age? Undoubtedly not,” he answers ; “ it 
went back only to Panteenus and Clement of Alexandria, who grounded 
it only upon supposition, or on their own personal views and feelings.” 

H 2 


100 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


And then he goes on to assert, that ‘‘ the epistle to the Hebrews was first 
favourably received at Alexandria, because it was so congenial to the 
allegorizing spirit of that place; thence the credit of it diffused itself to 
Antioch in Syria; and what Antioch and Alexandria believed concerning 
it, would, in process of time, be believed by all the other churches in 
Egypt, and in the East. Thus it came about, that in Eusebius’ time 
there was such a general consent among the churches of his neigh- 
bourhood, in the belief that Paul was the author of the epistle to the 
Hebrews.” 

It is not necessary to answer this, except by saying, that from begin- 
ning to end, it is a series of swppositions, wholly unsupported by a single 
historical fact, and wholly incapable of being supported by any known 
facts. The examination through which we have already passed, has, I 
trust, afforded sufficient evidence, that the suppositions in question are 
contrary to facts, and destitute therefore of any actual support, as well 
of any tolerable degree of probability. What connexion had Antioch 
with Alexandria? And how should a single Egyptian church and 
school, planted and instituted late in the apostolic age, if not after it, 
influence all the churches of the East, planted by Paul and the other 
apostles, and nurtured by their personal hearers and disciples, so as to 
make them receive a supposititious book into their canon? And why 
should not a multitude of other allegorical books, (like the Shepherd 
of Hermas,) written in or near the apostolic age, have been advanced to 
a place in the canon by the Alexandrine church, and thence have diffused 
their credit among all the Eastern churches? But it is unnecessary to 
proceed with such questions. If principles of argument, and methods 
of weighing testimony respecting ancient writings, may be adopted, like 
those which Eichhorn and Bertholdt have adopted here, in order to 
maintain the theory which they had espoused, any ancient writing what- 
ever may be proved to be either spurious or genuine, as shall best suit 
the notion of any individual. He has only to make out a series of bold 
and confident swppositions, and his work is done. 

1 deem it unnecessary to detail the testimony of writers in the Oriental 
churches, subsequent to the time of Eusebius. I shall merely advert to 
them, because it is not denied by any respectable critics, that, subsequent 
to this period, the epistle to the Hebrews was generally regarded in the 
East as Paul’s. 

- Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, received the epistle to the Hebrews 
as Paul's, about A.D. 300; as did the author of the Synopsis of Scrip- 


WESTERN CHURCHES. 101 


ture ascribed to Athanasius, and written about 320; Adamantius, about 
330; Cyril of Jerusalem, about 348; the council of Laodicea, about 363; 
Epiphanius, about 368; Basil, about 370; Gregory Nazianzen, about 
370; Gregory Nyssen, about 371; Ephrem Syrus, about 370; Diodore 
of Tarsus, about 378; and Chrysostom, about 398. Others might be 
named, which are mentioned in Lardner’s collection of testimonies, but 
it is superfluous. The object on account of which these have been 
adduced, is merely to show the unity and universality of the opinion, in 
the Oriental churches, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews subse- 
quently to the time of Eusebius, on whose testimony I have already 
dwelt. 

In fact, not a single writer of any respectability in the catholic church, 
in all the East, has been produced, who rejected this epistle; an extra- 
ordinary circumstance, indeed, if the belief of its apostolic origin was 
not altogether a predominant one in Egypt, and throughout all the 
eastern world. That there were individuals in this part of church, who 
doubted o1 denied the authenticity of it, will certainly be admitted by 
every unprejudiced inquirer. But that there was any thing like a 
respectable or widely diffused party, who denied it, can be supported by 
no competent evidence whatever. 


§ 16. Testemony of the Western Churches. 


In the Western churches, the case was certainly different. We come 
now to take a view of their opinion. 

We have already seen, that Clement of Rome, at the close of the 
apostolic age, has frequently quoted this epistle, and in the same way, 
and for the same purposes, that he does other parts of the Scripture; 
and, consequently, we cannot entertain reasonable doubts, that he 
regarded it as a part of the sacred records. Eusebius long ago drew 
the same conclusion. ‘ Clement,” says he, ‘ in his epistle acknow- 
ledged by all, which he wrote to the Corinthians in behalf of the church 
at Rome, exhibits many sentiments that are contained in the epistle to 
the Hebrews, making use of the very words of the epistle in several sen- 
tences, by which he shows most clearly, that this writing is not recent ; 
whence it seems probable, that it is to be reckoned among the other 
writings of the apostle,” Ecc. Hist. iii. 38. (See the original Greek, on 
p. 74, above.) That it had such credit, in this quarter of the church, 
for some time after this, is sufficiently manifest from the fact, that the o/d 


102 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


Latin version comprises it ; which was probably made before A. D. 15), 
or (as almost all acknowledge) before A. D. 200. 

The first negative evidence to be found among the Western churches, 
respecting the question before us, is that of Ireneeus, bishop of Lyons in 
France, during the latter part of the second century. Neither the 
country from which he sprung, nor the time of his birth or death, are 
known with any certainty. Eichhorn has placed him at A. D. 150, 
evidently in order to throw his testimony as far back toward the apostolic 
age as possible. Lardner places him at A. D. 178, a much more pro- 
bable era. He was a disciple of Polycarp, when very young; for he 
states himself, that when a child, he was a hearer of Polycarp, in Hither 
Asia, v. 20. 

Photius (fl. A. D. 858) tells us in his Bibliotheca, that Stephen Gobar, 
a writer of the middle ages, says, that Ireneeus and Hippolytus declare 
“‘ the epistle to the Hebrews not to be Paul’s,” Cod. 152. Eich. p. 519. 
Whence Gobar drew his conclusion, Photius does not inform us; nor 
does it any where appear. In all the writings of Irenzeus, now extant, 
no such assertion is contained; but then several of his writings are lost. 
That Irenceus was acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and that 
he has cited it, is directly testified by Eusebius, who says, that ‘‘ he wrote 
a book of various disputations, in which he mentions the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting some 
expressions from them,” * v. 26. But Eusebius does not say whether he 
quotes them as Scripture, or not ; and as the book of Irenzeus, to which 
he adverts, has perished, we have now no certain means of judging. 
Storr, Cramer, and some other critics, have called in question this asser- 
tion of Gobar, and have supposed that it is only a conclusion which he 
drew from the fact, that Ireneus had not quoted the epistle to the 
Hebrews in his works. But this reasoning must, of course, be merely 
hypothetical. We have the bare assertion of Gobar, without the grounds; 
and as Ireneeus has made no use of the epistle to the Hebrews, in his 
works still extant, the probability seems to be, that Gobar has given a 
correct statement. The passages produced by Lardner, as possible 
quotations, have indeed a close affinity with some passages in the epistle 
to the Hebrews; but still they may have been taken from the Old Testa- 
ment, instead of this epistle. (Lard. i. 368—370.) Neither can the 


* Kai PuBdiov re [sc. typape Eipnvaioc] diadékewv dtapdpwov, ty @ THC Tpos 
‘EBpatoug éexcorodrne, Kai THC NeyopEVNG Lopiag Loronw@yroc, punpoveter pyTra Ta te 


avroy mapabépevoc, k. Tt. Hist. Ece, v. 26. 


WESTERN CHURCHES: IRENUS. 103 


fact, that Ireneeus has quoted the epistle to the Hebrews, (which is suf- 
ficiently vouched for by Eusebius,) determine the question in respect to 
the nature of his testimony; for surely he may have quoted books, which 
he did not regard as Scriptural. On the whole, in the present state of 
evidence, it would seem, that we ought to admit it as probable, that 
Irenzeus did not include the epistle to the Hebrews in his canon; but on 
what ground, is uncertain. It may, indeed, have been the case, that this 
epistle, originally addressed to Hebrews in Palestine, had not yet ob- 
tained circulation and credit among that part of the church in Asia 
Minor, where Irenzeus lived when he was a youth. It is not improbable, 
too, that he went in early life, with Polycarp his teacher, to Rome; and 
that he remained there until he was sent to Lyons in France, where he 
became the successor of Photinus, in the bishopric of that city. In this 
way it may be accounted for, that Ireneeus came to cherish doubts 
respecting the epistle to the Hebrews; which, we shall see, began to be 
somewhat extensively cherished in the Roman churches during the latter 
half of the second century. 

At the same time, one cannot but remark, that it appears quite sin- 
gular, when Eusebius expressly mentions Irenzeus as having quoted the 
epistle to the Hebrews, that he should not, on this occasion or some 
other, have at all adverted to the fact of his having denied the Pauline 
origin of this epistle, if such were the fact. This is the more singular, 
because Eusebius has devoted a chapter of considerable length, in his 
work, entirely to giving an account of the manner which Ireneeus had 
mentioned the sacred books; and in this chapter there is not a word of 
Ireneeus quoted, respecting the epistle to the Hebrews. Ecc. Hist. v. 8. 

Moreover, Eusebius has evidently been careful and particular, on all 
occasions where the epistle to the Hebrews was treated of, to mention 
objections to it; or where persons of consideration in the church were 
named who rejected it, to state this fact. | Eusebius also must have had 
the writings of Irenzeus, in a more perfect state and much more complete, 
than Gobar who lived so long afterwards. And as Irenseus was a writer 
for whom Eusebius evidently cherished a high respect, it is really very 
difficult to account for it, that he should not have once adverted to the 
opinion which Gobar affirms was held by Ireneus. 

Difficult, however, as this would seem to be, the supposition that 
Ireneeus did not acknowledge our epistle, is somewhat strengthened by 
the united asseveration of Gobar and Photius himself, (Eichhorn, p. 519,) 
that Hippolytus, (whom Photius calls a disciple of Ireneus, and who 


104 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


probably flourished about A. D. 220,) asserts of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, that it is not Paul’s, Eichhorn, p. 520. This Hippolytus 
is called, by Eusebius, a bishop of some place; but neither he, nor 
Jerome, knew its name. The probable opinion is, that it was Portus 
Romanus. Lard. ili. 89, seq. The assertion in question was made, as 
Photius states, in a book of Hippolytus against heresies, which he com- 
piled from a work of Ireneeus. But as the work is lost, all that remains 
is the statement of Gobar and Photius; which seems, however, to be 
entitled to credit. 

In accordance with this denial of the Pauline origin of our epistle, is 
the testimony of Eusebius in respect to Caius. Caius is called, by 
Photius, a presbyter of the church of Rome; which is quite probable, 
although Eusebius and Jerome simply state that he was a presbyter, 
without naming the place of his residence. He flourished, it is most 
probable, about A. D. 210. The statement of Eusebius is as follows. 

“There hath come to us a dialogue of Caius, a most eloquent man, 
held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, a patron of the Montanist 
heresy ; in which, reproving the rashness and audacity of his opponents 
in forging new writings, he makes mention of only thirteen epistles of the 
holy apostle, not numbering that to the Hebrews with the others ; and even 
to the present time, some of the Romans do not reckon it to be Paul’s.” 
Lard. iii. 24. Eus. vi. 20. See the original, on p. 97, above. 

The new writings or scriptures here mentioned, were the prophecies 
which the enthusiastic Montanists feigned to have delivered by inspira- 
tion ; Montanus having declared himself to be the Paraclete. See Eus. 
vy. 14.18. Jerome states, that Caius denied the epistle to the Hebrews 
to be Paul’s; De Vir. Illus. voc. Caius. But Eusebius and Photius 
simply say, that he omitted it in his account of the canonical books ; 
which, however, virtually implies, under such circumstances, what Jerome 
declares. 

In what circumstances this dialogue was composed; whether it was 
first actually held, for substance, with Proclus, and afterwards written 
down; or whether it was only written (like the dialogues of Plato, 
Cicero, and others,) in order to represent the sentiments of Proclus, 
and confute them; whether it was held publicly, with the approbation 
of Zephyrinus and his presbyters, or not, we are not informed, and have 
no certain means of discovering. But I think it must be regarded as proba- 
ble, that Caius would not venture upon the publication of such a dialogue 
at Rome, without the concurrence or approbation of the church there. 


WESTERN CHURCHES: [REN EUS. 105 


Other evidence also is adduced, that.doubts whether the epistle to the 
Hebrews was Paul’s had already begun at Rome, and in the West, 
toward the close of the second century. Muratorius (Antiq. Ital. Medii. 
/Bvi. tom. ili. p. 854,) has published a fragment of an anonymous author, 
who probably lived near the close of the second century, that contains a 
catalogue of books which he deemed canonical, and which lacks the 
epistle to the Hebrews, those of James, Peter, and 3d John; while it 
contains some apocryphal books. Speaking of Paul’s epistles, this 
anonymous writer says, ‘‘ Fertur [epistola] etiam ad Laodicenses. Alia 
apud Alexandrinos Paulli nomine ficta ad heresia Marcionis, et alia 
plura; que in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest, fel enim cum 
melle misceri non congruit.” That is, ‘‘ An epistle is in circulation, 
addressed to the Laodiceans. Another is current with the Alexandrians, 
forged in the name of Paul, for the sake of promoting the heresy of 
Marcion, and many other things, which the catholic church cannot 
receive, for it is not proper to mingle gall with honey.” 

Critics have supposed, that by the alia apud Alexandrinos, this writer 
means the epistle to the Hebrews, which was received by the Greeks or 
Alexandrians. But surely it must be very doubtful, whether our epistle 
to the Hebrews is meant, as this anonymous writer admits several books 
not canonical into his catalogue, and excludes several others which are 
so. Besides, he mentions another fictitious epistle, viz. that to the 
Laodiceans. Why may not this epistle among the Alexandrians, forged 
in the name of Paul, in favour of the Marcion heresy, be wholly dif- 
ferent from our epistle to the Hebrews; which has not, and never had, 
the name of Paul affixed to it? And then how could this writer say, 
forged in favour of the Marcionite heresy? a heresy which denied the 
divine origin of the Jewish religion, and rejected the God of the Old 
Testament; two fundamental articles on which our epistle to the Hebrews 
is built. Nothing could be more directly opposed to Marcion, than this 
epistle. The probability, therefore, is, that our epistle to the Hebrews is 
not designated by the anonymous writer in question. But if it really be 
the fact, that he did mean to designate it, his consummate ignorance of 
the nature of its contents forbids us to attach any weight of importance 
to his testimony. 

But more definite and satisfactory evidence, that, about the close 
of the second century, there were doubts among the western churches 
whether our epistle was of apostolic origin, may be adduced from the 
works of Tertullian. This father, who flourished about A. D. 200, says 


106 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


in his book De Pudicitia (c. 20,) “There is an epistle of Barnabus 
inscribed to the Hebrews; therefore bya man of such authority, that 
Paul placed him next to himself in respect to abstinence; ‘‘ Am I and 
Barnabas only without power to do this?” And, certainly, this epistle 
of Barnabas is more received among the churches, than the apocryphal 
Pastor of adulterers,” [he means the Shepherd of Hermas.] ‘¢ Warning 
therefore the disciples, that leaving the first principles,” &c. [quoting 
Heb. vi. 1, &c.* 

That Tertullian also alludes to the epistle to the Hebrews in other 
passages, seems to me quite probable, from the instances of this nature 
produced by Lardner, ii. 608—612. But it no where appears, what 
credit he attached to this epistle. It is plain from the passage quoted, 
that he ascribed it to Barnabas; and not improbable, that the churches 
in his neighbourhood, and perhaps at Rome, did the same, at this period. 
It is also plain, that he does not ascribe full canonical credit to it, 
because he does not consider it as the work of an apostle ; otherwise he 
would have vehemently urged its authority upon his opponents, as the 
passage which he quotes seems extremely apposite to his purpose, which 
was, to prove that lapsed Christians could not again be received into the 
bosom of the church. That there was a division of opinion among the 
churches of his day, in the region where he lived, at least, seems to be 
plainly indicated, by his saying that this epistle was more correct, and of 
more authority in the churches, than the Shepherd of Hermas ; which 
latter, however, we know to have been early admitted as part of the 
sacred records, by a number of churches in the West. 

On the whole, it is plain that Tertullian did not admit our epistle to 
be Paul’s; and that there were churches in that region, who doubted or 
denied that it was his. 

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, comes next as a witness for the negative 
of our question. He flourished about A. D. 248, i.e. the next gene- 
ration after Tertullian, who died about A. D. 220. From Cyprian, how- 
ever, no direct testimony can be adduced. It is agreed, that he no 


* Volo, tamen, ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium 
superinducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. 
Exstat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quem 
Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentia tenore; ‘Aut ego solus et Barnabas non 
habemus hoc operandi potestatem?” Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola 
Barnabe, illo apocrypho pastore meechorum. Monens itaque discipulos, “ Omissis 


omnibus initiis,” &e. De Pudicitia, c. 20. 


WESTERN CHURCHES : CYPRIAN. 107 


where quotes the epistle to the Hebrews in his works ; which we cannot 
well account for, if he admitted its authority. There is but one passage 
hitherto produced from him, which seems to have a bearing on our ques- 
tion. It is as follows; ‘‘ The apostle Paul, who was mindful of this 
authorized and well-known number, [he is speaking of the number 
seven,| writes to seven churches.’* This would of course exclude the 
epistle to the Hebrews, as there are seven churches addressed besides 
this. But still, I cannot consider this testimony so decisive as Lardner 
tnd Eichhorn do, in respect to Cyprian’s canon. For, as the epistle to 
the Hebrews has no address, Cyprian may have had reference only to 
such of Paul’s epistles as have an address to churches prefixed, which 
are seven in number. I do not, therefore, regard this passage as amount- 
ing tomuch. The fact that Cyprian has nowhere quoted the epistle 
to the Hebrews, considering how many writings he has left behind him, 
and how many occasions he had _ to quote the sentiments contained in it, 
renders it probable, either that he was unacquainted with the epistle, or 
that he did not admit its canonical authority. 

Novatus, a presbyter of Rome, (A. D. 251,) the founder of the Nova- 
tian sect, is supposed by some critics not to have received the epistle to 
the Hebrews. This inference is drawn from the fact, that he does not 
appeal to it, in behalf of the sentiments which he maintained, respect- 
ing the exclusion of the lapsed heretics from re-admission to the church. 
There are passages in his writings, however, in which he seems to refer 
to the epistle to the Hebrews, e. g. “‘ It is asserted of Christ, by prophets 
and apostles, that he sitteth at the right-hand of the Father ;’’+ comp. 
Heb. i. 3. Again, ‘‘ Christ is found to be greater and better, not than 
one angel only, but than all the angels.”’{ The last of these passages, in 
particular, looks very much like a quotation from Heb. i. 4. Be the 
ease as it may, respecting Novatus himself, his followers, about thirty 
years afterwards, admitted the epistle in question; as is clear from the 
testimony of Philaster (about A. D. 380) on this subject, who states, 
that they received the usual canon of the Old and New Testament. 


Philast. Heres. 82. 


* Et apostolus Paulus, qui hujus numeri legitimi et certi meminit, ad septem eccle- 
sias scribit. De Exhort. Mart. cap. xi. 

+ Aut eum sedere ad dextram Patris, et a prophetis et ab apostolis approbatur. 
De Reg. Fid. c. xxvi. 

{ Qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et major et melior invenitur. De Reg 
Fid.‘c. xx. 


108 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


This is all the negative testimony that I have been able to find, in 
the churches of the west, previously to A. D. 400; excepting what is 
implied in the statements of some of the Latin writers, to whom I shall 
now advert. 

We have already seen, in the passage cited from Tertullian, an inti- 
mation of a difference of opinion among the Western churches, in respect 
to the epistle to the Hebrews, as if some received and some rejected it. 
Lactantius, about 306, who does not often quote Scripture, at least with 
any good degree of accuracy, seems to me to have some indubitable 
references to the epistle to the Hebrews, which Lardner has drawn out 
at length (vii. 185—188;) but as they only seem to recognize the 
authority of the epistle, but do not ascribe it to Paul, I shall not adduce 
them here. 

The epistle to the Hebrews was clearly received as Paul’s by Hilary, 
bishop of Poictiers, about A. D. 354; by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, 
about 354; by Victorinus, a famous rhetorician at Rome, about 360; 
by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about 374; by Philaster, bishop of Bres- 
cia, in Italy, about 380; who states, however, that there were some who 
did not admit it to be Paul’s; by Gaudentius, his successor, about 387 ; 
by the celebrated Jerome, about 392; by Ruffinus about 397; and by 
Augustine, about 400. 

But the testimony of Augustine and Jerome whose influence appears 
to have been effectual in re-establishing the credit of the epistle to the 
Hebrews among the Western churches, deserves to be adduced here, as 
it serves to show, that the Latin churches had not been united in respect 
to the point in question. 

Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, has the following passage. ‘‘ This 
is to be maintained, that this epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, 
is not only received by the churches of the East, as the apostle Paul’s, 
but has been, in past times, by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek 
language ; although most [Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was 
the author. And it matters not whose it is, since it belongs to some 
ecclesiastical man, and is daily commended by the reading of it in the 
churches. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the 
canonical writings,’* &c. Again; ‘‘ Among the Romans, it is not 


* Tilud nostris dicendum est, hane epistolam, que inscribitur ad Hebreos, non 
solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Greece sermonis scrip- 
toribus quasi apostoli Pauli suscipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabe, vel Clementis 


WESTERN CHURCHES: JEROME. 109 


received down to the present time as an epistle of Paul.’* This general 
assertion means only that ‘such is, or has been, the predominant cus- 


? 


tom among the Romans ;” as is plain from a passage in his epistle to 
Evagrius, where he says, ‘‘ which epistle to the Hebrews all the Greeks 
receive, and some of the Latins.’’+ In his epistle to Paulinus, he says, 
<< Paul the apostle writes to seven churches ; for his eighth epistle to the 
Hebrews is placed by most out of the number of his.”{ And again, in 
his Comm. on Matt. xxvi. he says, ‘‘ Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews, 
although many of the Latins doubt concerning it, says,” || &c. 

On a comparison of all these different passages together, the following 
appears to be the result of Jerome’s testimony. 

(1.) The majority of the Roman churches in his time did not receive 
the epistle as Paul’s; ‘it is placed by most out of the number of Paul’s 
epistles.” 

(2.) But some of the Latin churches did receive it still, in accordance 
with the custom of the Greek, i.e. Oriental churches; omnes Grect 
recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum. 

3.) The reception or rejection of this epistle, as described by Jerome, 
refers (one passage only excepted) to receiving it as Paul’s, or refusing 
to admit Paul as the author.. Jerome does not say, that the Roman 
churches condemned it as spurious. Nay, that he does not mean to say 
this, is very plain from his own express words; for after averring that 
“most persons [Romans] regard it as written either by Barnabas or by 
Clement,” he goes on to say, nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici 
viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. That is, it matters 
not about the person of the author, since he was an ecclesiastical man, 
and the churches every day read his epistle. But how much this means 
exactly, it is difficult to say; for the writer adds, Quod st Latinorum 


arbitrenter. Et nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecelesiarum 
ectione celebretur. Quodsi autem Latinorum consuetudo non‘recipit inter scripturas 
canonicas, ete.—Epist. ad Dardanum. 

* Apud Romanos, usque hodie, quasi Pauli epistola non habetur, Opp. tom, 
ili, p. 46. 

+ Quam epistolam ad Hebreos, omnes Greci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum.— 
Epist. ad Evagrium. 

t Paulus Apostolus ad septem ecclesias scribit ; octava enim ad Hebreos a pleris- 
gue extra numerum ponitur.—Epist. ad Paulinum. 

|| Paulus, in epistola sua que scribitur ad Hebrzos, licet de ea multi Latinorum 
dubitent, etc. loc. cit. 


110 § 17. RESULT. 


consuetudo non recipit inter canonicas scripturas, &c. By canonical, 
Jerome seems to understand apostolical, or having that authority which 
the writings of an apostle has. So much is plain, then, viz. that in the 
day of this writer, the churches made a distinction between writings apos- 
tolic and not apostolic ; and if so, it must have been by giving to the 
former a rank higher, and more authoritative, than the latter. On the 
whole, we must understand Jerome as meaning to aver, that while some 
of the Latin churches admitted Paul to be the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews, and regarded this epistle as canonical in the highest sense, 
most of these churches doubted whether Paul was the author, and conse- 
quently gave the epistle but a secondary place in their canon; or rather, 
they read it, with the other books of Scripture, for edification, but 
(probably) did not appeal to it as authoritative. 

The testimony of Augustine corresponds well with this. ‘“‘ Many say, 
that [the epistle to the Hebrews] is Paul’s; but some deny it.* And 
again; ‘‘ In the epistle to the Hebrews, which the illustrious defenders 
of the catholic faith use as a witness, faith is called, &c.”’+ 

The council at Carthage, held A.D. 397, reckon this epistle among 
the divine and canonical writings, and attribute it to Paul. 

I have now traced the history of this epistle down to the fourth 
century, in the Egyptian, the Eastern, and the Western churches. Lower 
down, it is altogether unnecessary to trace it; as all admit that it has 
had a general currency in the Christian churches every where, since that 
period. 


§ 17. RESULT. 


We now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian 
and Eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a pretty early 
period, some who had doubts whether Paul wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to 
us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest, from Origen and 
Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition 
to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write 


* Plures apostoli Pauli dicunt, [sc. epistolam ad Hebraos ;] quidam vero negant. 
De Civitate Dei, xvi. 22. 

+ In epistola quippe ad Hebrwos, qua teste usi sunt illustres catholic regulse 
defensores, fides esse dicta est, etc. De Fide, Spe, et Caritate, c. viii. 

t Sunt autem canonice Scripture ..... Pauli epistole tredecim, ejuscem ad 
Hebreos una, Can. 47. 


§ 17. RESULT. 1i1 


it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, whe 
has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of the 
question which we are considering. What Jerome avers, appears to be 
strictly true, viz. ab ecclesiis Orientis et ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis 
Greci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi apostoli Pauli suscipit. 

In the Western churches, a diversity of opinion prevailed; although 
the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not 
great. Yet the concessions of Jerome and Augustine leave no room to 
doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the Western churches, in 
their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the 
case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when 
the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a 
change of opinion in the West, we are left to conjecture. The scanty 
critical and literary records of those times, afford us no means for tracing 
the history of it. But this is far from bemg a singular case. Many 
othes changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which 
we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or 
satisfaction. 

Storr has endeavoured to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolu- 
tion, when he came from the East to Rome, and brought with him a 
collection of the sacred books, in which the epistle to the Hebrews was 
omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excom- 
municated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a 
revolution there in sentiment. Others have, with more probability, attri- 
buted it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party, 
whom the epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. 
The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom 
of the church, those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection 
from the Christian faith. The passages, in Heb. vi. 4—8, and x. 
26—31, at least seem strongly to favour the views which they main- 
tained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists 
very high; and Ernesti, and many other critics, have been led to 
believe, that the epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, 
because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. 

As a matter of fact, this caunot be established by direct historical 
evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, 
it must be allowed as not improbable, that the epistle to the Hebrews 
may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Romish church. Many 
such instances might be produced, from the history of the church. The 


112 § 18. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern 
sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood 
opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many 
of the Oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, 
who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther 
himself rejected the epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwarting 
his favourite notions of justification ; yea, that he went so far as to give 
it the appellation of epistola straminea? It cannot be at all strange, 
then, that the Romish church, exceedingly embittered by the dispute 
with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the 
apostolic origin of our epistle; because it was, to their adversaries, a 
favourite source of appeal, and because (unlike Paul’s other epistles) 
it was anonymous. 

That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin 
of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very 
active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of 
such an origin; or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. 

But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question 
was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the West, the fact, that 
it was so, cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, 
from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, 
seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as Paul’s ; 
although there were some among them who did receive it. 

It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and 
compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most 
important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as 
general and as uniform, for the first century after the apostolic age, as in 
respect to many other books of the New Testament ; and more so, than 
in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that THE WEIGHT OF 
EVIDENCE FROM TRADITION, IS ALTOGETHER PREPONDERANT IN 
FAVOUR OF THE OPINION, THAT PAUL WAS THE AUTHOR OF OUR 
EPISTLE. 


§ 18. Internal evidence that the epistle is Paul’s. 


We come, then, next to inquire, whether the internal condition of the 
epistle corresponds with and confirms this tradition. The evidence drawn 
from this, may be divided into two kinds: first, that which arises from 
circumstances mentioned or adverted to in the epistle ; and, secondly , 
that which arises from the style and manner of it. 


19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 113 


§ 19. Evidence that tt was Paul’s, from circumstances mentioned or 
adverted to in the epistle. 


As our epistle no where exhibits the author’s name, we can appeal, for 
internal testimony respecting the author of it, only to accidental circum- 
stances which are developed in it. 

(1.) The most striking one is that contained in xii. 23, ‘‘ Know ye, 
that our brother Timothy is azo\eAvpévov, with whom, if he come speedily, 
I will pay you a visit.” From the first acquaintance of Timothy with 
Paul, he had been his intimate friend and constant companion. That he 
was with Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment, we know for certainty ; 
because Paul has united him in the salutation prefixed to the epistles 
written to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, during his 
captivity in that city. Timothy was greatly beloved and confided in by 
Paul, as the manner in which he speaks of him, in several of his epistles, 
abundantly shows; and Paul often calls him (as here) his brother. But 
the meaning of the word azoXehupévor, as applied to Timothy, has been 
much contested; some rendering it, set at liberty, 1. e. from prison; 
others, sent away, i. e. on some errand of Paul’s. Giving to aroXehupe- 
voy the first meaning assigned it, viz. liberated, objectors have said that 
‘‘we have no account of Timothy’s having been imprisoned during the 
life of Paul, and therefore, the occurrence of his imprisonment must have 
taken place after Paul’s death; consequently the epistle must have been 
written by some other friend of Timothy, who calls him brother, in 
accordance with the usual style of the primitive Christians.” 

Nothing, however, can be more unsafe or uncritical, than the suppo- 
sition that the Acts of the Apostles, or Paul’s epistles, give us a full and 
complete account of all which happened to the various persons who are 
named in them. E. g. Aristarchus is called by Paul, in Col. iv. 10, his 
fellow-prisoner; as is Epaphras, in Philem. v. 23; but where is the 
history of their imprisonment? The supposition by Bertholdt, that 
another Timothy, different from him who is so often mentioned in the 
sacred records, may be meant here, is doubtless a possible one; but is it 
a probable one? Have we any kind of ecclesiastical voucher, that there 
was another Timothy, who distinguished himself in the apostolic age? 
It is possible that one Virgil wrote the Eneid, and another the Georgics ; 
yet who thinks it to be probable? But if this be insufficient, Bertholdt 
alleges that a different person from Paul may have been the intimate 

I 


114 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, 


friend and travelling companion of Timothy, while Paul was imprisoned 
at Rome; and that the passage we are considering, may have come from 
him. Eichhorn thinks it must have been written by such a friend of 
Timothy, after the death of Paul; as, during his life, Timothy closely 
adhered to this apostle. All this, no doubt, is possible ; and a great 
many other hypotheses, which could be easily made, present no zmpos- 
sibility. But are they probable? And is not the language, which we 
are considering, more appropriate to the known relation of Paul and 
Timothy, than to the relation-of any other person of that period with 
Timothy, concerning whom we have any knowledge? The spontaneous 
feeling of Christian readers, in all ages, has fully answered this question. 

But what was the imprisonment which is adverted to by the word 
(azoedvpévoy? To suppose with Schmidt, (Hist. Antiq. Canon,) and 
many others, that it was an imprisonment at Rome with Paul, is evidently 
preposterous ; for how, if Timothy were already at Rome, could Paul, or 
any one else there, say, 7f he come, or return, speedily? Must not 
Timothy have been absent, when this was said? If Timothy had been 
imprisoned abroad, and was then liberated (arodehvpevoy,) would he not 
have been the immediate bearer of the news himself to the apostle? I 
do not allege this as a certain fact, for possibly there may have been cir- 
cumstances to prevent it. But then, it is not in itself very probable, that 
Paul in confinement at Rome would obtain information about Timothy, 
(who, if absent, was doubtless among some of the churches where Paul 
had been,) any sooner than those to whom he wrote our epistle; and who, 
as it appears from the manner in which Paul speaks of him to them, had 
a special regard for him. 

Why, moreover, raise up all these difficulties in order to maintain an 
interpretation of azodedvpévoy which accords no better with the usws 
loquendi of the sacred or classical writers, than the rendering, dismissed 
or sent away? a sense so exactly consentaneous with the relation between 
Paul and Timothy. See Schleus. in voc. azodtw, No. 3. In Philip. ii. 
19, (this epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at Rome,) the 
apostle speaks of sending Timothy to them shortly, so soon as he should 
see how it would go with hin, in respect to being liberated from prison, 
ii. 23; at the same time expressing a hope, that he should himself come 
to them shortly, v. 24. What then is more natural than the supposition, 
that he did send Timothy to them; and that, during his absence, Paul 
wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in which he tells them, that Timothy 
was sent away, that he is now assured that he himself would be speedily 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. HG 


set at liberty, and that he intends to pay them a visit in company with 
Timothy, if he should shortly return, viz. from Philippi? Many facts ar 
believed by Bertholdt, and all other critics, which have less of verisimili- 
tude to support them than this. Indeed, one cannot well see, how mera 
circumstantial evidence could be better adapted to make the impression 
of probability than this. 

I do not feel the weight of the objection, made by alleging that Timo- 
thy was unknown to the church in Palestine, and that they could have 
no special interest with respect to the information in question. For, 
first, Timothy was the well-known and beloved companion of Paul, in 
all his journeyings during his later years; and must have been known as 
such, wherever Paul was known. Next, there can be no reasonable 
question, that he was with Paul during his last visit to Jerusalem, pre- 
viously to the apostle’s captivity for two years at Cesarea. Is there any 
probability, even if he were not with Paul during his journey to Jeru- 
salem, that he did not frequently visit him in his afflictions ? » And would 
not the church at Cesarea, therefore, be well acquainted with him ? 
Specially so, as Timothy would be the more acceptable to the Palestine 
Jewish Christians, on account of his having received the rite of circum- 
cision, after he became a convert to Christianity. 

Now, as all these circumstances do plainly accord with Paul’s situation 
while a prisoner at Rome; with his relation to Timothy ; and with the 
manner in which he employed him; and as we have not a syllable of 
testimony that they are applicable to any other person; I do not see how 
we can be justified, in denying that the evidence deducible from them is 
sufficient to render it quite probable, that Paul was the author of our 
epistle. 

(2.) In Heb. xiii. 18, 19, the writer asks the prayers of those whom 
he addressed, that he might speedily be restored to them; and in Heb. 
xiil. 23, he expresses a confident expectation of ‘‘ speedily paying them 
a visit.” From these passages it is clear, that the writer was then in a 
state of imprisonment; and, also, that he was assured of a speedy libe- 
ration, which would enable him to pay the visit that he had encouragea 
then to hope for. 

Compare this, now, with the situation of Paul at Rome, during the latter 
part of his imprisonment there. In his epistle to the Philippians, (written 
during that period,) he expresses his entire confidence that his life will 
be prolonged, so that he shall yet promote their religious profit and joy ; 
Tovro rerowc oda, Gre pev@ Kal cuvprapapev@ raow diy, eic Thy bay 


12 


116 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


mpokoriv Kat xapay rijc miorewc, Phil. i. 25. Again, in Phil. it. 24, he 
says, mwémoWa ce év Kupio, dru kal avroce rayéwe éXevoopar, I trust in the 
Lord, that I myself shall speedily come [to you.] In the epistle to 
Philemon, (also written during the same imprisonment, (he says, éd7iZw 
vip, Ore dua THY TpocEvyG@Y buoy XaptoOjoopat vpiy, for I hope, that by 
-your prayers I shall be restored to you, ver. 22. So confident was Paul 
of this, that he bids Philemon prepare lodgings for him, éroipagée por 
Eeviav, ver. 22. 

It appears very plainly, then, from these passages, that the writer had 
a satisfactory assurance in his mind of being speedily set at liberty ; 
although, it is probable, a formal declaration of his acquittal had not yet 
been made by the Roman emperor. This last conclusion I gather from 
Phil. ii. 23, where Paul declares to the church whom he is addressing, 
“‘ that he shall send Timothy to them immediately, &¢ ay azidw ra rept 
ue, whenever I shall know how my affairs issue.” By this it appears, 
that he was in daily expectation of receiving offictal notice of the deter- 
mination of the emperor in respect to his case, but that he had not yet 
received it. That he had private information, however, of the way in 
which his case was likely to terminate, and information which pretty fully 
satisfied his mind, is evident from the manner in which he speaks in the 
passages quoted above, of his intended visit to the Philippians, and to 
Philemon. 

Supposing, now, as soon as an intimation was made by the Roman 
emperor, that Paul would be set at liberty, that mtelligence respecting 
it was immediately communicated to the apostle, by those of Cesar’s 
household (Phil. iv. 22,) who were his Christian friends ; and supposing 
that, agreeably to his promise made to the Philippians i. 23, he then 
immediately sent away Timothy to them; and supposing still further, 
(which surely cannot be regarded as improbable,) that there was some 
little delay in formally making out his sentence of acquittal, and carry- 
ing it into execution by actually liberating him from prison; then 
how obviously easy and natural is the expression in Heb. xiii. 23, 
“* Know that our brother Timothy is sent away; with whom, if he 
speedily return, I shall pay you a visit?” On the supposition that the 
close of the epistle to the Hebrews was written at this juncture of time, 
nothing can be more probable than that the promised mission of Timothy, - 
adverted to in Phil. ii. 23, is referred to in Heb. xiii. 23; and conse. 
quently that azoAcdupeévoy here means sent away, dismissed, (as all must 
acknowledge it may mean,) and not, liberated, or, set at liberty. 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, 117 


The circumstances adverted to, or implied, in Heb. xiii. 23, Phil. 
i, 23, and Philem. ver. 22, have other correspondencies which deserve 
particular notice. In the two latter passages, it is plain that the writer 
expects his liberty, and means to send away Timothy to Philippi. In the 
former, he is assured of his liberty, and only waits for the return of 
Timothy, in order that he may set out to visit the Hebrews whom he had 
been addressing. In case Timothy did not return speedily (raytov,) it is 
plainly implied in Heb. xiii. 23, that the writer meant to set out on his 
journey without him. There was, then, some uncertainty in his mind, 
respecting the time when Timothy would return. How well all this 
accords with the journey of Timothy to a place so remote from Rome as 
Philippi, cannot fail to strike the mind of every considerate reader. 

Now, laying aside all favouritism for any previous opinions respecting 
our epistle, can it be reasonably doubted, that here is a concurrence of 
circumstances so striking, as to render it highly probable that Paul wrote 
it? More especially so, when we consider that the epistle must have 
been written, about the same period of time when these circumstances 
happened, for it proffers internal evidence of being written before the 
destruction of Jerusalem; and yet written so late, that the period when 
the Hebrews were first converted to Christianity is adverted to as being 
already a considerable time before, Heb. v. 12, and is called rac zpdrepov 
HpEpac, x. 32. Now, the imprisonment of Paul, at Rome, happened pro- 
bably A.D. 62 or 63, which was some thirty years after the gospel had 
begun to be preached abroad, and about seven years before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. 

Taking all these circumstances together, it must be acknowledged 
that there is an extraordinary concurrence of them, which cannot but 
serve much to increase the probability that our epistle was written by 
Paul, near the close of his liberation at Rome. 

The objections which Bertholdt makes against the arguments just 
presented, do not seem to be weighty. ‘‘ Would Paul,” he asks, ‘ pro- 
mise to revisit Palestine, when the people of that very country had 
sent him into captivity at Rome? A very improbable circumstance, 
indeed !”” 

But a nearer consideration of the circumstances attending Paul’s case, 
will remove the appearance of so great improbability. For, first, Paul had 
heen kept a prisoner, at Cesarea, two years before his removal to Rome, 
Acts xxiv. 25—27; and at Rome he lived two years more, in a similar 
condition, Acts xxviii. 30. These, with the time occupied by his going 


118 § 19, INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


to Rome, and returning from it, would make nearly a five years’ interval 
between his leaving Palestine and revisiting it. Might not some of his 
fiercest persecutors have died during this period? Or, might they not 
have laid aside their furious, persecuting zeal ? 

But, in the next place, supposing our epistle to have been sent to the 
church at Cesarea, where Paul had been treated with so much kindness 
during his imprisonment; could there have been any fear in his mind, 
with respect to paying them a visit? And even if we suppose that 
Cesarea was not the place to which the letter was directed, but that it 
was sent to the Christians at Jerusalem; yet the objection brought for- 
ward by Bertholdt will not be of much validity. Paul was not to be 
deterred from going to Jerusalem, by the prospect of persecution. From 
the time when he first made his appearance there, after his conversion, 
the Jews had always showed a bitter enmity against him, and persecuted 
him. Yet this did not deter him from going, again and again, to that 
city. And why should it now deter him, any more than formerly ? 

Besides, he was now liberated from the accusations of the Jews, by 
the sentence of the emperor himself. Would they venture to do again, 
the very thing which the court of Rome had decided to be unlawful ? 
Might not Paul well expect, with the decision of the emperor in his hand, 
to find his personal liberty for the future respected ? 

«« But,” says Bertholdt, ‘“‘ we have no account that Paul paid a visit 
to Palestine, after his liberation.” 

True. But what argument this can furnish, against the probability 
that he did pay such a visit, I do not perceive. Bertholdt himself, in 
the very paragraph which contains this objection, says, ‘‘ Who does not 
know, that the accounts of what befell the apostles, and primitive 
teachers of Christianity, are very incomplete?’ Every one knows, that 
Luke breaks off the history of Paul, with the account of his imprison- 
ment at Rome. Has any writer given us a well-authenticated supplement 
to this? And can the want of any history of Paul, after the period of 
his imprisonment at Rome, be a proof that he never travelled to any 
particular place, or that he did not live and preach there? Surely this 
cannot be urged with any show of propriety. 

I add only, that analogy would lead us to suppose that Paul, when 
liberated, would go to Palestine, and then to the other churches in Asia 
Minor. Such was the general course of his travels; see Acts xvill. 

#2, seq. It is altogether consonant, then, with the usage of Paul, te 
suppose that he would visit the church at Palestine, after his imprison. 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 119 


ment at Rome; and therefore natural to suppose that Heb. xiii. 23, 
refers to such an event. 

(3.) If the reading in Heb. x. 34, ‘‘ for ye had compassion on my 
bonds,” (rote decpoic yov,) be correct, it is another argument that Paul is 
the author of our epistle ; for his bonds in Palestine, whither the letter 
was sent, are well known. That he obtained compassion there, parti- 
cularly during his two years’ imprisonment at Cesarea, will not be 
questioned. But as the reading despotic pov is controverted, and deopiore 
(the prisoners) is preferred by some good critics, I do not think proper 
to urge this argument; although the evidence is about equally in favour 
of Secpoic pov, decpotc, and deopioe. 

(4. The salutation in Heb. xiii. 24, agrees with the supposition that 
Paul wrote this epistle; domdZovrar tude ot ard ric “Iradiac. Paul, 
writing from Rome, which had communication, of course, with all parts 
of Italy, and with the Italian churches, may very naturally be supposed 
to have sent such a salutation. Indeed, the circumstances render this 
quite probable. 

The objections made against this, do not strike me as forcible. Eich- 
horn alleges, that oi a0 rij¢ "Iradiac must mean people who had come 
from Italy, i.e. who had left Italy, and were locally out of it, when the 
writer sent a salutation from them. Consequently, he concludes, the 
writer of the epistle could not have been Paul, during his imprisonment 
at Rome. 

This interpretation, however, is not founded in the usus loquendi of 
the Greek language. From the many proofs of this, which might be 
offered, I select only a few cases. Matt. xxi. 11, "Inootc..... 6 amo 
Nagapér, Jesus the Nazarene ; oi xd Oeaoadovixne "lovdaia, the Thes- 
salonian Jews. In this last case, the Jews at Thessalonica, not out of 
it, are meant; as is plain from the last part of the verse, which speaks 
of them as going to Berea, after they had heard the report of Paul’s 
preaching there. So oi ao ‘lepocohipwy ypappareic, the Jerusalem 
scribes, Matt. xv. 1. 

In the same manner, other prepositions, of the like signification with 
azo, are used with the article: e. g. of é« ép.Welac, the contentious ; ot éx 
vomov, sticklers for the law; ro é ovpavov, heavenly ; ot ék rig Kaicapog 
oixiac, Cesar’s domestics. 

So far is Eichhorn’s remark from being well founded, in regard to the 
meaning of such a phrase as oi azo rijc "Iradiac, that one may venture to 
say, it is incapable of such a meaning as he gives it. It is only when 


120 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


«zd, im such a connexion, is preceded by agiarnut, avaBalyw, ebépxopat, 
Epxopat, karaBaivw, &c. that it denotes, being out of a country. Oi amo 
denotes, belonging to. Consequently the salutation in Heb. xiii. 24, 
means simply, The Italians [i. e. Italian Christians] salute you. 

But here again, it is asked, ‘‘ How came Italians to salute a church in 
Palestine? If Paul wrote our epistle, at Rome, why did he not say, 
aoralovrat bude ot ard THe’ Pwuynco? What acquaintance had the Romans 
with the church at Palestine ? 

This objection, however, will not bear examination. The Romans 
surely were Jtalians; and it isa matter of indifference, whether the 
writer at Rome said ot a70 rijce ‘Pwpne, or of ao rijc "Iradiac, if he meant 
to send only the salutation of Christians who resided at Rome. But is 
it at all probable, that there were not Christians often at Rome, from 
various parts of Italy, who were acquainted with Paul, and who cherished 
a friendly interest for the church whom he was addressing? If these 
also, as well as the Romans, wished to send the expression of their 
friendly regards to the Hebrews; what other phraseology could Paul 
have adopted, that would be more appropriate than oi azo riic "Iradéiac, 
which would embrace Christians in general, who lived in the country 
where the writer was ? 

Then, why should this be thought so strange, when an example of the 
very same nature may be produced from the acknowledged writings of 
Paul? This apostle, writing from Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 8,) to the church 
at Corinth, says, The churches of Asia salute you, xvi. 19. May not 
the same questions be urged here, as objectors urge in the case above ? 
May we not ask, How could the Asiatics be personally known to the 
Corinthians? And why should Paul speak of the churches of Asia, and 
not of that at Ephesus? Plainly, the reason of this was, that Christians 
from different parts of Asia Minor, (which is here meant,) were collected 
together in Ephesus, its capital, where they had intercourse with Paul, 
and knew that he was addressing the Corinthians, and desired an expres- 
sion of their brotherly affection toward them. What is more common, 
every day, than for single individuals, or societies of men, who have never 
had any personal intercourse together, to exchange friendly salutations ? 
Could not Paul as well send the salutation of oi ao rie "Iradiag, as of 
ol a0 The ’Aciac ? 

Such are the various circumstances adverted to in our epistle, whicn 
serve to render it probable that Paul was the author of it. From its na- 
ture, this evidence is indirect; but evidence of such a kind is, not unfre- 


§ 20. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 121 


4 2ntly, as convincing as that which appears to be more direct. The pre- 
fixing or suffixing of a writer’s name to an epistle, is a more easy and 
obvious method of interpolation, than the insertion of minute circum- 
stances, which imply a very intimate acquaintance with a writer’s condi- 
tion and circumstances. 

Will any one undertake to show, that the circumstances, which are 
brought into view above, may be more probably attached to some other 
person than to Paul? If not, then the probability from them is in favour 
of Paul as the author of our epistle. 


§ 20. Evidence that the epistle is Paul’s from a similarity of senti- 
ment, and also from the form, method, style, and diction of the 
composttion. 


The preceding section treated of the facts or external circumstances, 
to which various passages of our epistle adverts; and what is gathered 
from these may be called, in a certain respect, a kind of external evi- 
dence. But a comparison of our epistle with the other acknowledged 
writings of Paul, remains yet to be made. This is a species of evidence, 
on which some have relied with great confidence; and it is remarkable, that 
it has been appealed to with equal confidence, both by those who defend, 
and by those who assail, the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Even in very ancient times, so early as the third century, the same occur- 
rence took place. One might, perhaps, naturally enough conclude from 
this, that no very satisfactory evidence on either side would be obtained ; 
but that the epistle contains things to which both parties may appeal, 
with some tolerable show of reason. Before coming, however, to such a 
conclusion, we ought at least to make a thorough investigation, and to 
weigh well all the arguments which are adduced to support the respective 
opinions to which I allude. 

A comparison between our epistle and the acknowledged letters of 
Paul, may have respect to the doctrines taught in both; or to the form 
and method, as well as the style and diction, of the epistle. When these 
shall have passed in review before us, the allegations, with regard to a 
dissimilarity between the epistle to the Hebrews and other epistles of 
Paul, may be further discussed. 


122 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


§ 21. Similarity of DOCTRINES between the epistle to the Hebrews, 
and the acknowledged epistles of Paul. 


Are the sentiments, in our epistle, such as Paul was wont to teach ? 
Do they accord with his, not only in such a general way as we may easily 
suppose the sentiments of all Christians in the apostolic age harmonized 
with each other, but have they the colouring, the proportion, the charac- 
teristic features of Paul’s sentiments? Are they so stated and insisted 
on, as Paul is wont to state and insist on his? 

The resemblance in respect to doctrine. may be arranged, for the sake 
of perspicuity and distinction, under the following heads : 


J. General preference of Christianity above Judaism, 


There can, indeed, be no reasonable doubt, that all the apostles and 
primitive teachers of Christianity, who were well instructed in the princi- 
ples of this religion, must have acknowledged and taught its superiority 
over the ancient religion of the Jews. The very fact, that they were 
Christians, necessarily implies this. But still, it is quite certain, that 
the preference of the new above the ancient religion, is taught by Paul 
in a manner different from that of other writers of the New Testament ; 
and with more emphasis, in his writings, than in any other parts of the 
sacred volume. 

The grounds of preferring Christianity to Judaism, may be classed 
under the following particulars. 

(1.) The superior degree of light, or religious knowledge, imparted 
by the gospel. 

In his acknowledged epistles, Paul calls Judaism, ra orovxeta rod 
kdopov, Gal. iv. 3; and again, ra aobevij kat rrwXa ororxeta, Gal. iv. 9. 
He represents it as adapted to children, vijrcor, Gal. iv. 3, who are ina 
state of nonage and pupilage, Gal. iv. 2, or in the condition of servants 
rather than that of heirs, Gal. iv. 1. 

On the other hand, Christians attain to a higher knowledge of God, 
Gal. iv. 9; they are no more as servants, but become sons, and obtain 
the privileges of adoption, Gal. iv. 5,6. They are represented as réActor, 
1 Cor. xiv. 20; as being furnished with instruction adequate to make them 
dvdpac redelove, Eph. iv. 11—13. Christianity leads them to see the 
glorious displays of himself which God has made, with an unveiled 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 123 


face, i. e. clearly, 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; while Judaism threw a veil over these 
things, 2 Cor. ii. 13. Christianity is engraven on the hearts of its 
votaries, # dvaxovia rov avevparoc, 2 Cor. iii. 8; while Judaism was 
engraven on tablets of stone, évreruropévn év NéDore, 2 Cor. iii. 7. 

Such is a brief sketch of Paul’s views in respect to this point, as pre- 
sented in his acknowledged epistles. Let us now compare these views 
with those which the epistle to the Hebrews discloses. 

This epistle commences with the declaration, that God, who in times 
past spake to the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, 
spoken to us by his Son, Heb. i. 1, ii. 1, seq. Judaism was revealed 
only by the mediation of angels, i. 2; while Christianity was revealed 
by the Son of God, and abundantly confirmed by miraculous gifts 
of the Holy Ghost, 11. 3,4. The ancient covenant was imperfect, in 
respect to the means which it furnished for the diffusion of knowledge ; 
but the new covenant provides that all shall know the Lord, from the 
least to the greatest, vill. 9—11. The law was only a sketch or imper- 
fect representation of religious blessings; while the gospel proffers the 
blessings themselves, x. 1. The worthies of ancient times had only 
imperfect views of spiritual blessings ; while Christians enjoy them in full 
measure, xi. 39, 40. 

(2.) The gospel holds out superior motives and encouragements to 
virtue and piety. 

Paul represents the condition of the Jews, while under the law, as 
like to that of children, immured and kept under the eye of masters and 
teachers, Gal. iii. 23, iv. 2; as being in bondage, Gal. iv. 3; as ser- 
vants, iv. 1; as children, iv. 3; and as having the spirit of bondage, 
Rom. viii. 15. This servile spirit, which inspired them with fear, Rom. 
viii. 15, gives place, under the Christian religion, to the spirit of adop- 
tion, by which they approach God with filial confidence, Rom. viii. 
15—17. Christianity has liberated us from pedagogues, and made us 
partakers of the privileges of sons and heirs, Gal. ili. 25, seq. iv. 4, seq. 
The liberty of the gospel affords urgent motives for the practice of vir- 
tue, Gal. v. 1, seq. v. 13, seq. The spirit imparted under the gospel 
furnishes aid, and creates special obligation, to mortify our evil passions 
and affections, Rom. viii. 12—17. Circumcision is now nothing, and 
uncircumcision nothing ; but obedience to the commands of God is the 
all-important consideration, 1 Cor. vii. 19. Not circumcision or uncir- 
cumcision is matter of concern, under the Christian religion, but a new 


124 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


creation, i. e. a spiritual renovation, Gal. vi. 15, and faith which worketh 
by love, Gal. v. 6. 

Turn we now to the epistle to the Hebrews. There we find, that the 
sacrifices prescribed by the Jewish law, could not quiet and purify the 
conscience of the worshipper, ix. 9; nor deliver him from the pollution 
of sin, in order that he might, in a becoming manner, worship the living 
God; which is effected only under the gospel, ix. 14. The law served 
to ‘inspire its votaries with awe and terror, Heb. xii. 18—21; but the 
gospel with cheering confidence, xii, 22—24. Now, we may obtain 
grace to serve God in an acceptable manner, xii. 28. We have a cove- 
nant established on better promises than the ancient one, vill. 6—13; 
and are urged by more powerful motives to a holy life under the gospel, 
xl. 25—29. 

It must be admitted, in respect to the particulars of the comparison 
just drawn, that the diction of the passages generally, in the epistle to 
the Hebrews, presents no very striking resemblances to that in Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles. But this, as will be easily seen by inspecting all 
the passages drawn into the comparison, may very naturally result from 
the different topics with which the passages from our epistle stand con- 
nected. The mode of introducing these topics is different, because it 
arises from different occasions of introducing them. But the fundamen- 
tal ideas in both are the same. Other writers also of the New Testa- 
ment urge the obligations of Christians to peculiar holiness of life ; but 
what other writers, except Paul, urge it from comparative views of the 
Jewish and Christian dispensations ? 

(3.) The superior efficacy of the gospel, in promoting and ensuring 
the real and permanent happiness of mankind. 

Paul represents the law as possessing only a condemning power, and 
subjecting all men to its curse, in consequence of disobedience, Gal. ii. 
10. {tis the ministry of death, 2 Cor. iil. 7; the ministry of condem- 
nation, 2 Cor. iii. 9; by it none can obtain justification or pardoning 
mercy, Gal. iii. 11, Rom. i. 20. 

On the contrary, Christianity is the ministry of pardon, rijc ducaootyne, 
2 Cor. iii. 9; it holds out forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ, gra- 
tuitous pardon on account of him, Rom. ii. 24, 25, Eph. i. 7. Through 
him, we are allowed to cherish the hope of future glory, Rom. v. 1, 2; 
and this without perfect obedience to the law, Rom. ii. 21, Gal. i. 16; 
Acts xiii. 38, 39. And to such blessings, under the gospel, is attached 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 125 


a most important circumstance, in order to heighten their value, viz. 
that they are perennial, and not (like the Mosaic institutions) liable to 
abolition, 2 Cor. i. 11. 

In correspondence with all this, the epistle to the Hebrews represents 
the Mosaic dispensation, as one which was calculated to inspire awe and 
terror, Heb. xii. 18—21; the offerings and sacrifices which it enjoined, 
could never tranquillize and purify the conscience of the worshipper, 
ix. 9; for it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should 
take away sin, x. 4, 11. The blood of Christ has made a real expiation, 
procured forgiveness, and liberated the conscience from an oppressive 
sense of guilt, ix. 11—14; v. 9; vi. 18—20. Christ by his death has 
delivered us from the condemning power of sin, and freed us from the 
oppressive fear which it occasions, il. 14,15. He has procured access 
to God, and is ever ready to aid those who approach him, vii. 29; ix. 24, 
The offerimg which he has made for sin has a perennial influence, and 
without repetition remains for ever efficacious, ix. 12, 25—28; x. 12; 
vil. 23—28. 

Other writers also of the New Testament have set before us the 
blessings of the gospel, and these as connected with what Christ has 
done and suffered. But what other writer, except Paul, has charged his 
picture with such a contrast between the Mosaic and Christian dispen- 
sations, and thrown so much shade over the one, and light over the 
other? If the hand of Paul be not in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is 
the hand of one who had drunk deeply of his doctrines, and in a high 
degree participated of his feelings and views. 

(4.) The Jewish dispensation was only a type and shadow of the 
Christian. 

Thus Paul often represents it. Meats and drinks, feasts and new 
moons, and sabbaths, are oxua rHv pehdovrwy, but the sda is Christ, Col. 
ii. 16,17. The passage through the Red Sea was typical of Christian 
baptism ; and the manna, of our spiritual food, 1 Cor. x. 1—6. The 
occurrences under the ancient dispensation were typical of things under 
the new, 1 Cor. x. 11. In like manner, Paul calls Adam rizoc rod 
Hédovroe, i. e. a type of Christ, Rom. v. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45—47. 
The Mosaic institution did but darkly shadow that, which is clearly 
revealed under the gospel, 2 Cor. iii. 13—18. Hagar and Sarah may 
be considered as allegorically representing the law and the gospel, or 
the two covenants, Gal. iy. 22—31. The law was only our pedagogue 


126 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


until the coming of Christ, under whom full privileges are enjoyed, Gal. 
ili. 23—25, iv. 1—5. 

The epistle to the Hebrews, in like manner, represents the Jewish 
rites and ordinances only as a zapa/3oX7, 1. e. a significant emblem of 
blessings under the gospel; and these rites were imposed only until 
the time of reformation, ix. 9—14. The law was only oxa of good 
things to come; while the gospel proffered the very things themselves, 
x. 1. All the Levitical ritual, the temple itself and all its appurte- 
nances, were only a trddevypa of the temple in which Christ ministers, 
and of the functions which he performs, viii. 1—9, ix. 22—24; they 
were a designed emblem of the objects of the new dispensation, ix. 9. 

The question may be emphatically put here,—What other parts ot 
the New Testament, the writings of Paul excepted, furnish us with views 
of such a nature as these exhibit? Manifestly Pauline is both the sen- 
timent, and the costume which the writer has put upon it. 

(5.) While the Christian dispensation is designed for perpetuity, 
the Jewish institutes are abolished on account of their imperfection. 

Paul represents the Law as having no glory, in comparison with 
Christianity, 2 Cor. iii. 10; it was designed to be abolished, when the 
perennial dispensation of Christ should be introduced, 2 Cor. iii. 11. 13. 
The veil over the ancient dispensation rendered it obscure, and hindered 
the Jews from fully comprehending it; but the time was come, under 
the gospel, when that veil was removed, and the glory of God was seen 
with open face, 2 Cor. iii. 13—18. The law being altogether incapable 
of justifying sinners, gives place to another and gratuitous method of 
justification, Rom. iv. 14d—16. Christians are dead to the law, and 
affianced to another covenant, Rom. vii.4—6. The law was incom- 
petent to effect the designs of divine benevolence, and therefore gives 
place to a more perfect dispensation, Gal, ili. 21—25; iv. 1—7; v. 1. It 
was void of power to justify the sinner, and therefore the interposition of 
Christ became necessary, Rom. vill. 3,4; Gal. u. 16. 

On the other hand, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews represents 
the new covenant as inspiring better hopes than the ancient one did, and 
the latter as taxable with defects, viii. 6-—8. The old covenant is anti- 
quated, and ready to expire, éyyv¢ agaviopod, vill. 13 Christ is ap- 
pointed high-priest according to a new order of priesthood, different from 
the Levitical one; because the dispensation, by which the latter received 
its appointment, was weak, and incompetent to effect the introduction 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 127 


1 of such hopes as the gospel inspires, vii. 17—19. Burnt-offerings and 
sacrifices can never take away sin, Christ only can effect this; so that, 
when his offering is made, it needs not to be repeated, but is of sufficient 
and everlasting efficacy, x. 1—14. 

Other writers of the New Testament have also appealed to the efficacy 
of Jesus’ atoning blood; but who, besides Paul, has thrown this whole 
subject into an attitude of contrast with the inefficiency of the Jewish 
dispensation ? 

Thus much for our first general head, by way of comparing the sentz- 
ments of Paul with those of our epistle, in respect to the grounds of 
preference over Judaism, which Christianity affords. 


II. The person and work of the Mediator, Jesus Christ. 


Under this head, the following particulars are entitled to our consi- 
deration :-— | 

(1.) The PERSON of the Mediator is presented in the same light, by 
the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, and by Paul. 

Paul, in various passages, represents Christ as the image of God, as 
the resemblance or likeness of the Father; as humbling himself, or con- 
descending to assume our nature, and suffer death in it; and as being 
exalted in consequence of this, i.e. as a reward of his benevolence and 
obedience, to the throne of the universe, and made head over all things. 
Thus, in Philip. i. 6—11, Christ being év pop¢j Oeod, took on himself 
our nature, and obeyed or subjected himself, in the same, unto death, 
even the death of the cross; in consequence of which, God hath given 
him a name above every other, so that all in heaven or on earth must bow 
the knee to him. In Col. i. 15—20, Christ is represented as the image 
of the invisible God; as having created all things in heaven and in 
earth; all things are said to consist by him; over all he has a distin- 
guished pre-eminence ; and by his sufferings and death he has produced 
a reconciliation among the creatures of God, and made expiation for 
sin, so that God treats the pardoned sinner as if he were innocent. In 
2 Cor. viii. 9, Paul says, that the Lord Jesus Christ, who was rich, 
became poor on our account, that we through his poverty might become 
tich. In Eph. iii. 9, God is said to have created all things by Jesus 
Christ; and in 1 Cor. viii. 6, all things are said to be by him. In 
1 Cor. xv. 25—27, it is declared, that he must reign until all things are 
put under his feet. 


128 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


The peculiarity of this Pauline representation consists, in presenting 
Christ as the damage of God; in specificating the act of humility by which 
he became incarnate, he humbled himself, éxévwoe ceavrov—though rich, 
he became poor ; in presenting his obedience and sufferings, as the ground 
of his elevation to the throne of the universe, in the mediatorial nature ; 
in representing him as head over all, both friends and enemies, and as 
reigning until his enemies be made his footstool; and finally, in repre- 
senting God as having created all things by him. 

If we turn now to the epistle to the Hebrews, we find the same repre- 
sentations there. The Son of God is the reflection of the Father’s glory, 
his exact image or resemblance, yapaxrijp, 1. 3. God made all things by 
him, i. 2. He directs all things by his powerful word, i. 3. He was in 
a state of humiliation, (7Aarrwpévoy,) lower than the angels, 1.9. He 
took part in flesh and blood, that he might, by his own death, render 
null and void the destructive power of the devil, 11. 14. On account of 
the suffering of death, he is exalted to a state of glory and honour, ii. 9. 
He endured the sufferings of the cross, making no account of its dis- 
grace, but having a regard to the reward set before him, which was a 
seat at the right hand of God, xu. 2. All things are put under his feet, 
ii. 8. x. 13; where the very same passage from the Old Testament is 
quoted, which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. xv. 25—28, and it is applied in the 
same manner, 

Is all this, now, mere accident? What other writer of the New 
Testament presents such speciality of views respecting Christ’s resem- 
blance to God, his mediatorial character, his obedience, sufferings, and 
exaltation in our nature to the throne of the universe? No other writer 
presents them in the same connexion, employs the same images for com- 
parison, or brings the topics to view in the same light, There is a 
peculiarity of representation so distinctly marked here, so exclusively 
Pauline in its manner, that if Paul himself did not write the epistle to the 
Hebrews, it must have been some one, who had drunk in so deeply 
of his instructions, as to become the very image of the fountain whence 
he drew. 

(2.) The death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and the 
reconciliation of sinners to God by means of this sacrifice. 

Other writers, indeed, of the New Testament, besides Paul, teach this 
doctrine. But there is in his letters a peculiar and urgent manner of 
enforcing it. Oftener than any other writer, does he recur to this inter- 
esting theme; and in all his representations, it stands in high relief. 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, 129 


The general annunciation of it is often repeated. Christ came into 
the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. i. 15. He died for our sins, I Cor. 
xv. 3. He was given up or devoted to death, on our account, Rom. 
viii. 32. Our redemption was wrought by him, Rom. ii. 24. He was 
given up, i.e. to death, on account of our offences, Rom. iv. 25. He 
gave up himself for our sins, Gal. i. 4. ii. 20. He gave up himself an 
acceptable sacrifice for us, Eph. v. 2. He was our paschal lamb, 1 Cor. 
v. 7. By his blood we have redemption, or forgiveness of sin, Eph. i. 7. 
Col. i. 14. He gave himself ransom for all, 1 Tim. ii. 6. 1 Cor. vi. 20. 
vii. 23. These may serve as a specimen of the general statement which 
Paul so frequently makes of this subject. 

But he also recurs very often to this topic, in his reasonings at length, 
and insists upon it with particularity. In his epistle to the Romans, he 
labours at length to prove the universal guilt of men, in order to show 
that salvation by Christ is necessary for all, Rom. ii. 22—27. vy. 12—21. 
He urges the impossibility of obtaining this salvation by the law, Rom. 
iii. 20. 28. viii. 3. Gal. ii. 16. 21; averring that Jesus, by his death, has 
effected what the law could not do. Assuming our nature, he became a 
sin-offering for us, Rom. viii. 3. He became a propitiatory sacrifice on 
our account, so that through him we may obtain pardoning mercy, 
Rom. iii. 24—26. As all men have come into a state of condemnation 
through Adam, so all men may come into a state of pardon through 
Christ, Rom. v. 12—21. comp. 2 Cor. v. 14. 19—21. Now, since Christ 
died for us, Christians may regard God as no more inclined to punish 
them as guilty, for they are in a state of peace and pardon, Rom. y. I. 
8—I11. viii. 32. Now we may hope for abounding grace and happi- 
ness, Rom. v. 17. vi. 23. viii. 17. 32. Jesus at the right hand of God 
is ever ready to aid us, Rom. viil. 34. Jesus is the Mediator between 
God and man, to make reconciliation, 1 Tim. u. 5, 6. 

It were easy to add many other passages of the same tenor, from the 
acknowledged writings of Paul; but these are sufficient to exhibit his 
views, and the mode in which he inculcates them. 

In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find the same sentiments, urged with 
the same ardour. Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, made expiation 
for our sins, i. 3. By the grace of God, assuming our nature, he tasted 
death for all, ii. 9. He became, through his sufferings, the author of 
eternal salvation to believers, ver. 8, 9. 

But no where is there more speciality of argument to establish this 
great point, than in Heb. vil. viii. ix. and x.; nearly all of which is 

K 


130 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


occupied with it. The Jewish offerings are altogether insufficient to 
make expiation, ix. 9—14. vil. 11.19. x.1.11. Those offerings needed 
constant repetition; and even then, they could never remove sin, 
v. 1—3. vil. 27, 28. ix. 6, 7.25. x. 4.11. Christ by offering up him- 
self has effected this, i. 3. vii. 27. ix. 25, 26. By his own blood, not 
with that of beasts, he entered into the eternal sanctuary, once for all 
making expiation for sin, ix, 12—15. x. 10—12.14.19. By his death, 
he has delivered us from the oppressive fear of condemnation, ii. 14, 15. 
He has tranquillized and purified the conscience of penitent sinners, 
which the law could not do, ix. 9.14. He is the Mediator of a new 
covenant, 1x. 15. xii. 24; which is better than the ancient one, vii. 22. 
vii. 6. He is exalted to the throne of the universe, ii. 6—10; and he 
is ever ready and able to assist us, iv. 14—16. vii. 25. He has intro- 
duced us to a dispensation, which speaks not terror only, like the law, 
but offers abounding grace and happiness, xii. 18—29. 

Such are some of the more striking trazts of doctrine, and peculiarities 
in the mode of representing them, common to the acknowledged epistles 
of Paul and to the epistle to the Hebrews. 


§ 22. Form and method of the epistle to the Hebrews, compared with 
those of Paul’s acknowledged epistles. 


These topics may be considered, either in a general point of view, as 
it respects the arrangement of the epistle at large ; or specially, as having 
reference to various particulars which it exhibits. 

(1.) The general method or arrangement of this epistle, is like to 
that of Paul. 

Most of all does it resemble his two epistles to the Romans, and to the 
Galatians ; which exhibit first a theoretical or doctrinal, then a practical, 
part. The epistle to the Romans is principally occupied, to the end of 
the tenth chapter, with the doctrinal part; and the remainder with 
practical matter and salutations. In like manner, the epistle to the 
Galatians, as far as the end of the fourth chapter, is principally doctrinal 
discussion ; while the remainder is hortatory and practical. In some 
degree, the same thing may be said of the epistles to the Ephesians 
Colossians, Philippians, and Thessalonians. But that to the Romans is 
most distinctly marked of all. 

Turning now to the epistle to the Hebrews, we find that it is composer 
on asimilar plan. As far as chapter x. 19, it is principally doctrina] 
It has, however, like Paul’s other epistles, occasional exhortation inter- 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 13} 


mixed, which the strength of the writer’s feelings plainly appears to have 
forced from him. ence to the end, it is hortatory and practical. 

In the epistle to the Romans, just before the salutatory part begins, 
the writer earnestly asks for a special interest in the prayers of those 
whom he addressed, in order that he may be delivered from the power 
of persecution ; and he follows this request with a petition, that the God 
of peace might be with them, and concludes with an Amen, Rom. xv 
30—33. The very same order, petition, style, and conclusion, appear 
at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 18—21. The writer begs 
an interest in their prayers, that he may be restored to them the sooner ; 
commends them to the God of peace, (an expression used no where else 
but in Paul’s writings, and in the epistle to the Hebrews ;) and concludes 
with an Amen, before the salutation. 

Is all this arrangement, to which we have now adverted, merely 
accidental ; or does it look as if it must have come from the hand of the 
same writer? I know, indeed, it has been said, that the order of nature 
and propriety would lead every man, writing an epistle which contained 
doctrinal discussion and practical exhortation, to arrange them in such 
a manner that the former should precede; and that this arrangement, 
therefore, cannot with probability be represented as exclusively Pauline. 
With the views of rhetorical propriety, which are entertained by classical 
scholars of the present day, I readily acknowledge that such an order 
is almost spontaneous. But then, another question arises here. Why 
has not Paul adopted this in all his epistles? And why has neither 
John, nor James, nor Peter, nor Jude, adopted it? All these apostles 
have commingled doctrine and practice throughout their epistles. 
Regularly arranged discussion of doctrine, they do not exhibit. In this 
respect, the only similars to the epistle to the Hebrews are to be found 
in the epistles of Paul. But if the general arrangement here adverted 
to, be not considered as of much weight in the matter before us, it must 
be admitted, that there is a striking resemblance between the close of the 
practical part, just before the salutations or greetings, in the epistles to 
the Romans and to the Hebrews. Here, also, we find the exclusively 
Pauline phrase, the God of peace, employed in the same way, in both 
epistles. 

(2.) The manner of appealing to and employing the Jewish Scrip- 
tures, in Paul’s acknowledged epistles and %* ve epistle to the 
Hebrews, is the same. 

I do not refer here to the formulas of quotatiou, by which a passage 

K 2 


132 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


from the Old Testament is introduced. I have compared those formulas 
presented by the epistle to the Hebrews, with those in Paul’s epistles ; 
but I do not find any thing peculiar enough .in either, to mark Paul’s 
writings with any certainty; as I shall endeavour to show, in its proper 
place. Every where, in the New Testament, a great variety of such 
formulas is found, as also in the epistles of Paul. I refer now, in a 
particular manner, to the method in which, and the frequency with 
which, the Jewish Scriptures are employed; and that in a similar way, 
both in the epistle to the Hebrews, and in the acknowledged epistles of 
Paul. Paul often quotes and combines passages of Scripture, without 
any notice of quotations; e. g. Rom. ix. 7. 21. x. 6—8. 18. xi. 33, 34. 
xi. 9. In Rom. iil. 10—18, several passages from different parts of the 
Scriptures are combined together, without any notice that this is done, 
In the same manner does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews pro- 
ceed; e. g. ili. 2. vi. 14. x. and xi. throughout; also, in xii. 5, 6. 12, 
13. and xiii. 6, quotations, with a general appeal, are made from differ- 
ent parts of Scripture connected together. Paul makes a very frequent 
and copious use of the Jewish Scriptures, in all the argumentative part 
of his epistles; so does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Paul 
often appeals to the Jewish Scriptures, as prophetically declaring the 
abrogation of the Mosaic economy, and to Abraham, as having received 
a covenant which the law could not annul; the same does the writer of 
the epistle to the Hebrews. Paul employs the Old Testament, in every 
way in which the Jews of that time were usually accustomed to reason 
from it. Sometimes he appeals to direct and prophetic assurances ; 
sometimes to similarity of sentiment ; sometimes he accommodates pas- 
sages, which in the original have a local or temporary meaning, to desig- 
nate something then extant, or happening at the time in which he wrote; 
sometimes he appeals to the history of the Old Testament, for analogical 
cases to confirm or impress the doctrine or truth which he inculcates ; 
and sometimes he uses the Old Testament language as a vehicle of . 
thought, in order to express his own ideas. The very same traits charac- 
terize, in a most visible manner, the method in which the Old Testament 
is employed throughout the epistle to the Hebrews; as every attentive 
reader must plainly see, without my delaying here to specify indi- 
dual cases. 

In a particular manner does Paul employ passages of the Jewish 
Scripture, and Scripture history, kar’ dvOpwrov ; in other words, he uses 
them by way of argumentum ad hominem, or argumentum ex concessis. 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 133 


It is thus that he allegorizes, on the two sons of Sarah and Hagar, in 
Gal. iv. 24, seq.; on the command of Moses, not to muzzle the ox 
which treadeth out the corn, Deut. xxxv. 4, the spirit of which he 
applies to the maintenance of religious teachers, in 1 Cor. ix. 9; on the 
rock from which the Israelites obtained water, Exod. xvii. 6, which he 
considers as an emblem of Christ, in 1 Cor. x. 2, seq.; on the veil over 
Moses’ face, Exod. xxxiv. 33, which he applies to the comparative 
obscurity that rested on the Jewish revelation, in 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14; on 
the declaration that a man should leave his father and mother, and 
cleave to his wife, and that they twain should become one flesh, Gen. 
ii. 24, which he applies to the union of Christ and his church, in 
Eph. v. 31, 32. 

How conspicuous this method of reasoning is, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews, need not be insisted on to any attentive reader. The whole 
comparison between Christ and Melchisedek, Heb. vii., is of a similar 
nature with those already mentioned. The temple and all its apparatus, 
and the holy place, which the high-priest entered with his expiatory 
offerings of blood, are types and shadows of the temple, of the offering, 
and of the great High-priest presenting it in the heavens, Heb. viii. 
1—5. ix. 1—9. Indeed, the strain of argumentation, throughout, is 
often ad hominem, or ex concessis. The argument that Christ is a more 
exalted personage than the angels, than Moses, than the high-priest ; 
that Christ’s priesthood, the temple in which he officiates: with all its 
apparatus, the offering of blood which he makes, and his official duties 
as a priest, are all spiritual, heavenly, elevated above all the correspond- 
ing things in the Jewish dispensation, to which the Jew adhered with so 
strong an attachment, and by which he was tempted to make defection 
from his Christian profession, is peculiarly ad hominem. We who are 
not Jews, and who have never felt the power of their prejudices, need 
not, in order to produce in us a conviction of the importance of Chris- 
tianity, to be addressed with comparisons drawn from ritual types, and 
from the analogy of such objects. But these were all familiar to the 
Jew, and were not only attractive to him, but, in his view, of the highest 
importance. No one, indeed, can reasonably find fault, that the writer 
addresses the Jews as such ; reasons with them as such ; and makes use 
of those arguments, whether ad hominem or ex concessis, which he knew 
would produce the most powerful effect in persuading them to hold fast 
the truths of Christianity. There is nothing in this, which is inconsistent 
with the maxim of that apostle, who became “all things to all men;” 


134 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


with the Jews, demeaning himself, and reasoning as a Jew, and in 
like manner with the Gentiles, in order that he might win both to 
Christianity. 

But it is not my object, here, to defend the manner of argumentation 
employed in Paul’s acknowledged epistles, and in the epistles to the 
Hebrews. I design merely to show, (what cannot be denied,) that 
the same method of reasoning from sentiments and objects presented by 
the Old Testament, is exhibited by both, and in a manner which cannot 
well escape the attention of the inquisitive reader, 

I will only ask now, What other writers of the New Testament have 
exhibited the traits of composition, which I have noted under this head, 
in the same degree, or with the same frequency? Nay, I venture to 
affirm, that there is scarcely an approximation, in any of their writings, 
to those of Paul, either in regard to the frequency or the latitude of the 
usage in question. 

But it may be said, ‘‘ This only shows, that these other writers named 
were not the authors of the epistle to the Hebrews; not that Paul wrote 
this epistle.”’ 

It seems to me, however, to go somewhat further. It proves that the 
characteristics peculiar to Paul’s epistles and to the epistle to the 
Hebrews, were not the general or universal characteristics of writers. 
of that age; and, of course, that either Paul, or one who had drunk in 
deeply of his doctrme and manner, must have written the epistle in 
question. 

(3.) The manner of Paul’s reasoning, in respect to separating his 
premises from his conclusion, or his protasis from his epitasis, bears 
a striking resemblance to that which is found in the epistle to the 
Hebrews. 

The peculiarity I have in view, is the enthymeme or imperfect form 
of syllogism, and unfinished sentences and comparisons; which, it has 
been often observed, are characteristic of Paul’s mode of writing. He states 
the major, or major and minor terms, of a syllogism; or the first parts 
of a sentence or comparison; and then, leaving it in this unfinished 
state, he turns aside to illustrate or confirm some hint, which was 
suggested to his mind by what he had stated ; or some train of thought 
is introduced, to which the natural association of ideas would lead; and 
after descanting on this, he returns, and with, or without, repeating his 
proposition or sentence at first commenced, presents in full the con- 
clusion, or epitasis, which is required to complete it. . 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 135 


A striking example of this occurs in Rom, v. 12-18. ‘ Wherefore,” 
says he, ‘‘ as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and 
so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned,” ver. 12. The 
premises being thus stated, he turns aside to descant on the universality 
of sin, its pernicious consequences, and the salutary effects of the bless- 
ing which is proffered by Christ; and it is not until he reaches the 18th 
verse of the chapter, that the proposition which he had commenced is 
repeated, and the conclusion fully brought out, where it is thus stated : 
‘* Therefore, as by one offence, condemnation came upon all men; so, by 
the obedience of one, the blessing of justification unto life comes upon 
all men.” 

So in Rom. ii, 6, Paul says, ‘‘ Who [God] will render to every man 
according to his works;” and after nine verses of explanatory matter, 
which was suggested by the mention of rendering to every man accord- 
ing to his works, he adds, at last, the remainder of the sentence which 
he had begun, viz. ‘‘in the day when the secret doings of men shall 
be judged by Jesus Christ, according to the gospel which I preach,” 
Rom. ii. 16, 

So in Eph, ii. 1, the apostle says, ‘‘ For this cause, I Paul, the 
prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles ;” then, leaving the sentence 
thus commenced, he proceeds on, twelve verses, with thoughts suggested. 
by the mention of his being a messenger to the Gentiles ; and, finally, in 
the 13th verse, he adds the conclusion of the sentence commenced in the 
first, viz. ‘‘I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which 
is your glory.” 

In the same way has the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews con- 
structed some of his reasonings and sentences. In Heb. iv. 6, he says, 
“‘ Seeing, then, it remains that some should enter into [the rest,] and 
they to whom the good tidings were formerly proclaimed, did not enter 
in through unbelief— ;” the sentence is then suspended, until the writer 
introduces another quotation from the Psalms, and reasons upon it, in 
order to prove that the rest in question could not have been such a rest 
as the land of Canaan proffered. After this, and in the 9th verse, we 
have the concluding part of the sentence or syllogism, viz. “there 
remaineth then a rest for the people of God.” How entirely this 
coincides with the Pauline manner above exhibited, must strike the 
mind of every one who considers it. 

So in Heb. v, 6, the writer introduces the divine appointment of 
Christ as a priest after the order of Melchisedek, with a design to show 


136 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


that this was an appointment of the most solemn nature, and of a higher 
order than that of the Jewish priests. He then suspends the considera- 
tion of this topic, and introduces another, in verses 7—9; after which 
he resumes the former topic. But no sooner does he do this, than he turns 
aside once more, in order to descant upon the difficulties which present 
themselves in the way of an ample discussion of it. These result from 
the very imperfect state of religious knowledge among those whom he 
addresses, verses 11—14; the criminality and danger of which state 
he dwells upon at large, in chap. vi. intermixing threats and encourage- 
ments. It is not until we come to chap. vii. 1, that the subject of Mel- 
chisedek’s priesthood is resumed ; where it is treated of, at full length. 

So in Heb. ix. 7, the writer says, that ‘‘ the Jewish high-priest entered 
into the holy place, once in each year, with the blood of victims, in 
order to make atonement.” This is designed as one member of a com- 
parison; but the other member follows only in ix. 12, after descanting 
on several matters suggested by what the writer had stated. There the 
antithesis is stated, viz. ‘‘ Jesus, the high-priest of future blessings, 
entered the sanctuary of the temple not made with hands, with his own 
blood accomplishing eternal redemption,” ix. 12. 
£ Such is the suspended connexion here, even if we adopt that method 
of interpretation which will make it as close as possible. But an atten- 
tive consideration of the whole preceding context, will perhaps render it 
probable to the attentive reader, that Heb. ix. 11, may be the antithesis 
of the latter part of viii. 4, and first part of vill. 5; where the izoderypa 
and oxi roy érovpariwy, are in contrast with the peddAdvtwy a&yaboy and 
the peiZovoc Kat TEAELOTEPAC OKNVIC, OV KELPOTOLHTOV, of ix. 11. 

How much such suspensions resemble the manner of Paul, need not 
be again insisted on. Instances of this nature might easily be increased ; 
but no attentive critical reader can help observing them, as they abound 
in the epistle to the Hebrews. 

The instances above produced may serve to show, that, as to form 
and method, in regard either to general arrangement, or the deducing 
of arguments from the Old Testament, or the exhibition of a pecu- 
liar manner in the statement of these arguments, there is a striking 
similarity between the acknowledged writings of Paul and the epistle to 
the Hebrews. 

To the method of argument which I have thus far employed, in order 
to show the probability that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, some 
objections have been, and may be, raised. 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 137 


It may be asked, ‘‘ Did not Paul’s hearers, disciples, and intimate 
friends, who travelled with him, daily conversed with him, and for years 
heard his instructions, cherish the same views of doctrine that he did? 
And in writing the epistle to the Hebrews, might not an attentive hearer 
of Paul, and a reader of his epistles, exhibit the same sentiments? And 
further; if the same general manner, in which the contents of his 
epistle are arranged, or the contents of some of them, be found in 
the epistles to the Hebrews; or if the particular manner in which he 
quotes or employs passages of tha Jewish Scriptures, or interprets 
them; or if even his method of stating arguments, and employing 
imperfect syllogisms or sentences, be found in this epistle; still, may 
not some favourite disciple of his, some devoted follower and successful 
imitator of his manner, be naturally supposed to have derived all this 
from hearing him, and reading his letters? And how, then, can argu- 
ments of this nature prove that Paul wrote the epistle in question ? 

Prove it, in the way of demonstration, they certainly cannot; nor is 
this the purpose for which they are adduced. But of this, more here- 
after. At present, I merely observe, that the force of these objections 
is very much diminished, if in comparing the epistle to the Hebrews with 
the writings of Paul, it shall appear, that not the strain of sentiment 
only; not merely the general arrangement of the contents of the epistle, 
or the particular manner of it in respect to various ways of reasoning, or 
constructing syllogisms and sentences; but even the tdzomatical and 
distinctive style and diction itself of Paul abound in it. These, none 
but a writer that was a mere copyist or plagiarist could exhibit. But 
such a writer is one of the last men who can be justly suspected of 
having composed an epistle like that to the Hebrews. 

These suggestions naturally lead us, in the next place, to a com- 
parison, in respect to phraseology and words, between the acknowledged 
writings of Paul, and the epistle to the Hebrews. 


§ 23. Comparison of the phraseology and diction of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and the acknowledged eprstles of Paul. 


1. The similarity of phraseology and diction, where the same words or synonymoug 
ones, are employed ; or where the shade of thought or representation is peculiar and 
homogeneous, although the language may be somewhat diverse. 

Heb. i. 2. Ai ot [Inco Xpeorod] Kai rove aidvac [Oedc] éxolnae. 
Eph. iii. 9. To [Oe9] ra ravra kricayre da Inood Xpiorov. 


138 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Heb. i. iii. “Og Gy dravyacpa rijc CdEne Kal yapakrijp rite brocrdacews 
avrov. 

Col. i. 15. “Og gore eikey rov Oeod rod aoparov. 

°y ee a > ~ a 

Phil. il. 6. “Og év poppy Ocov trapywy. 

2 Cor. iv. 4. “Oc éorw eikwy rov Ocov. 

Heb. i. 3. Sépwy re ra wavra 7O phpare rijc duvapewe abrov- 

Col i. 17. Ta rayre év abr@ ovvéoryke. 


Heb. i. 5. Yidc pov el od, éy® ofjpepoy yeyévynka oe. 

Acts xiii, 33. Yiog pov el ov, éy@ onpepov yeyévynxa oe; used here 
by Paul, and applied in both passages (but nowhere else in the New 
Testament) to Christ. 


Heb. i. 4, Toootry xpeirrwy yevopevoe rev ayyéhuv, Sop dcagopwrepov 
Tap avrove KekAnpovdunkey Gvopa. 
Eph. i. 21. ‘Yrepavw ...... mavrog dvdparog dvopagopévou ob pdvoy 
ty T@ ai@ve TOUTH, GANG Kal Ev TP péAr 
@ aide ToUTH, adda Kal Ev TY péovTe. 
Phil. ii. 9. ‘O Oede «..... éxapicaro air@ ovopa TO tmép Tay ovova: 


iva éy TM dvopare "Inoov ray yovu Kappy éxovpaviwy, K. tT. r 


Heb, i. 6. Tov mpwrdroxov 1... 

Rom. vii. 29. Eic rd elvat abroy roy mowrdroxor. 

Col. i. 15. Hpwrdroxog maone xricewc. V. 18. T[pwrdroxoc. This 
appellation is applied to Christ nowhere else, excepting in Rev. i. 5. 


Heb. ii. 2. ‘O & dyyéAwy AadnPeig Adyos. 

Gal. iii. 19. 'O vopoc... .dtarayete di dyyehkwy. Comp. Acts vii. 53. 

Here is the same sentiment, Adyo¢ and yduoc being synonymes ; as, for 
substance, AadnOele and diarayeic are. However, Stephen once uses a 
similar expression, Acts vil. 53. 


Heb. ii. 4. Snpetoe re cat répact, cai worxihare duvdpect, kal tvevparos 
ayiov pepiopotc. 

1 Cor. xii. 4. Acampécete d& Yapioparwy elot, ro O€ avro TvEvpa. 

1 Cor. xii. 11. Mdvra d€ ratra évépyet 70 tv Kat 70 abro rvevpa, Ccatpody . 
idig Excdorw Kabwc Bodderac. 

Rom. xil. 6. “Eyovrec 5€ yaplopara kara ry xapw rijy dobeicay Hyiv 
Sidpopa ....+. all spoken of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, 


~ 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 139 


and characterized by the same shade of thought, viz. the various or 
different gifts of this nature distributed by him. 


Heb. ii. 8. Wdyvra irératac troxdrw tay TrobGy avrov. 

1 Cor. xv. 27. Ilavra yap trérager bd Tove médac avrov. 

Eph, i, 22. Kai ravra trératey bd Tove TOdac avTov. 

Phil. iii, 21. ‘Yrordéac EavT@ 7a Tava ...-.. phraseology applied to 
designate the sovereignty conferred upon Christ, and found only in Paul 


and in our epistle. 


Heb. ii. 10. Ai dy ra wdyra, cal di ov Ta mavra. 

Rom. xi. 36. ’E& avrov, cat oi avrov, cal cic avroy 7a TayTa. 

Col. i. 16. Ta rdvra Oi avrod Kal cic airov. 

1 Cor. viii. 6. Eig Ocdc....2& ov ra mavrat Kat elg Kipuoc....i ov 7a 
wdvra »... a method of expression, employed to designate God as the 
author of all things, and also the lord and possessor of them, which is 
appropriate to Paul, and to our epistle. 


Heb, ii. 14. “Iva .... xarapyjon tov rd xpdrog Exovra Tov Oavarov, 
Tour’ Eori Toy Ovaodor. 

2 Tim. i. 10. Karapyjoavroc pev tov Oavaroy. Karapyéw, employed 
in the sense of abolishing, rendering null, is exclusively Pauline. No 
other writer of the New Testament employs it at all, except Luke; and 
he but once, and then in a quite different sense from that attached to it 
by Paul, Luke xiii. 7. 

Heb. ii. 16. Zrépparoc ’ASpacu, to designate Christians. 

Gal. iii. 29, Ei dé tyete Xpeorov, dpa rov ’ABpatp oréppa éore. 

Gal. ill. 7. Oi é& riorewe, ovrol eiory viol "ABpaap. 

Rom. iv. 16. "APpaap, bc éore rarip Tavtwy Hor. 

The appellation, seed or sons of Abraham, applied to designate 
Christians, is found only in Paul and in our epistle. 


Heb. ili. 1. KAjoewe éxovpariov, 

Phil. ili. 14. Tie &vw cAjoewe Tov Ocod. 

Rom. xi. 29. “H «Ajo rod Ocov. The phrase heavenly or divine call- 
ing, applied to designate the proffered mercies of the gospel, is limited 
to Paul and to our epistle. 

Heb. iv. 12. Zav yup 6 \byoe tov Oxod .... Kal ropwrepoc, Urép KGoay 


paxapay dtoropoy. 


140 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Eph. vi. 17. Tijy paxapay rov rveiparoc, 6 éort pijpa Oeov. The 
comparison of the word of God to a sword, is found only in Paul and 
in our epistle. 

Heb. v. 8. Kaizep oy vide, Euabey ag’ dv Exabe riv traxony. 

Phil. ii. 8. ’Erareivwoev tavroy, yevopevoc Urjxooc, péxpt Oavarov. The 
idea of obedience in the humiliation and sufferings of Christ, constitutes 
the speciality and the similitude of these two passages. 


Heb. v. 13. Nijrwoe yap éort, 1.e. a child in religion, comparatively 
ignorant, uninformed.. 

1 Cor. ill. 1. ‘Qe vnriore év Xpuorg, in the same sense. 

Eph. iv. 14. “Iva pyxére Ouev vfjrior, in the same. 

Rom. ii. 20. Acddoxadov vnriwy, in the same. 

Gal. iv. 3. “Ove jjpev vio, inthe same. This phraseology is limited 
to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. v. 14. Tedeiwy dé éoriv t oreped rpop).. 

1 Cor. xiv. 20. Tate 0 gpect réXevor yiveobe. The word rédeor is here 
the antithesis of vj, and means well instructed, mature. In this 
sense, it is employed only in Paul and in our epistle. 


Heb. vi. 1. TeXecdrnra, an advanced, mature state, i. e. of Christian 
knowledge. 

Col. iii. 14. Svvdeopoc rife redevdrnroc, the bond or cement of a matured 
Christian state. The word reXecdrne, in such a sense, is limited to Paul 
and to our epistle. 


Heb. vi. 3. 'Eavzep éxirpérn 6 Ococ. 
1 Cor. xvi. 7. "Edy 6 Kipwog émirpézn ..-... 2 phrase no where else 
employed. 


Heb. vi. 10. Tije &yarne ihe Evedei£acbs Eig 70 Ovopa avrov, dvaxovijoay- 
rec Tole dylowe Kal OvakovourTec. 

2 Cor. viii. 24. Tiy ody tvdeckw rig ayarng bpudy «6+. Eic adrove Evdei- 
Eao0e. The similarity consists in employing évdeiacOar rhv ayaryy in 
both cases, constructed with eic before the object that follows. 

Heb. viii. 5. Otrivec trodelypare kat oxi Narpevovor roy Exovpavlwy. 

Heb. x. 1. Zkiay yap Exwy 6 vopoc tov pzANOvrwv. 

Col. ii. 17. "A gore oxi roy pedrdAvrwy .... language respecting the 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 141 


figurative nature of the Jewish dispensation, which is appropriate to Paul 
and to our epistle. 


Heb. viii. 6. Kpelrrovoc éore Sabine pecirne. 

1 Tim. ii. 5. Efe Peoitng wees Xpworoe "Inootc. 

Gal. iii. 19, 20. "Ev yerpi pecirov. ‘O o€ pecirne Evdc obk Lore 

The word mediator, applied to designate Christ or Moses, is appro- 
priate to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. viii. 10. Kat oopar abroic cic Oedv, kal avrot corral por cic Aady. 

2 Cor. vi. 16. Kai copa airdyv Oedc, Kat avroi Egovral pot Nave. 

Both passages are quoted from the Old Testament. The resemblance 
consists in the quotation and application of the same passage in both 
places, and in the same manner. 


Heb. viii. 10. Kat émi xapdiac abray éxvypaw abrove. 

Rom. ii. 15. To épyov rov véuov yparroy év raitc xapdtae abray. 

2 Cor. iii. 3. “Eyyeypappévn .... év traki kapdtac capxivare. 

The passage in Hebrews is a quotation. But the other passages serve 
to show that such a phraseology was familiar to Paul, and that he pro- 
bably derived it from the Old Testament passage, quoted in Heb. viii. 10. 


Heb. ix. 15. Oavarou yevopévou cic drodirpwow ray éxt rH TpwTy dua- 
OnKy tapaBacewy. 

Rom. iii. 25. Aci& rije awodvtpwcewe .... ic Evdeck rite OumKatoobyne 
avrov, du THY TapEoL THY TpOyEyOVOTWY dpaprnmarwr. 

In these two passages the peculiar idea is expressed, that the efficacy 
of Christ’s atoning blood extends back to past ages; an idea nowhere 


else brought to view in the same manner. 


Heb. x. 19. “Exovreg «+++ mappnotay ig ry Elaodoy Tay dyiwy ev TO 
aipare Inaod. 

Rom. v. 2. Ai ob rv mpocaywyhy éoxiikapey rh lore eic Tiy yapw 
TauTny. 

Eph. ii. 18. Ai abrod Exouer ry mpocaywyiy ..+s mpog TOV Tarépa. 

Eph. iii. 12. "Ev & tyopev rv rappnoiay kat riv mpocaywyiy Ev mE- 
mobinoet. 

The idea of access to God, or zappyaia, bold, free access, or liberty 
of address, is designated in this manner only by Paul and in our epistle. 


142 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Heb. x. 28. Emt dvaty jj rptot pdpruow arobvijoxee. 

2 Cor. xiii, 1. 'Emt ordpuarog cto papripwy Kai rp oradijecrae wav 
pjua. 

1. Tim. v.19. ’Emt ovo ij rpu@v papripwy. Such an expression is found 
elsewhere, only in the words of Christ, Matt. xviii. 16. 


Heb. x. 30. ’Epot éxdéknowc, éyo avratodwow. 

Rom. xii. 19. ’Epot éxdéxnore, éy@ avrarodwow. 

The similarity consists in quoting the same passage, and applying it 
to show that punishment is the awful prerogative of the Deity, and that 
he will inflict it. 


Heb. x. 32. “AOAnow .... rv waOnparwr. 

Phil. 1. 30. Tov abrov dyava tyorrec, oly etdere Ev Emor. 

Col. ii. 1. ‘HAtkov &ydva txw repli tpor. 

1 Thess. i. 2. Aadjjoat.ee. TO evayyétoy .6.. EV TONAM aywre. 

The phrase contest, in respect to afilictions, is peculiar to Paul and to 
our epistle, 


Heb. x. 33. "Ovedeopote re cal Odipeoe OearpiZopevar. 
1. Cor. iv. 9. Ogarpov éyevhOnpev TH Koopw, kK. T. X..-... language 
peculiar to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. x. 33. Kowwvol rév oitwe dvaorpedopévwr yernbévrec, partict- 
pating, i. e. sympathising with the afilicted. 

Phil. iv. 14. LuyKowwrvhoavréc prov rH Odile, sympathising in my 
afficction. The same figurative expression stands in both passages. 


Heb. x. 38. 'O o€ dikatoc ék Ticrewe Gyoerat. 

Rom. i. 17. ‘O 6€ ddkawe ék riorewe Choerat. 

Gal. il. 11. “Ore 6 Oixatoe éx rictewe Gijoerat. 

The passage is a quotation. But the application, and use of it, appear 
to be exclusively Pauline. 


Heb. xii. 1. Tpéxwpev rov mpokeipevoy hiv ayorva. 

1 Cor. ix. 24. Otrw rpéxere iva xaradapyre. 

Phil. iii. 14. Ta pév driow éri\avOardpevoc, toig bé EurpooOer erexret- 
vopevoc, KaTa oKOTOY OwKwW. 

The resemblance here is, that Christian efforts are, in each passage, 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 143 


compared to @ race; a comparison found only in Paul and in our 
epistle. 


Heb. xi. 18. TeroiOapev yap, dre kadjv ovveldnow txoper. 
Acts xxiil, 1. Paul says, "Eya radon cuvednae ayaby wewoXirevpat. ss 
a manner of speaking found nowhere else. 


Heb. xiii. 20. ‘O 6€ Ode rijc eiphyne. 

Rom. xv. 33. ‘O 6& Oed¢ ric eipvne. Also in Rom, xvi. 20. 1 Cor. 
xiv. 33. 2 Cor. xii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. 1 Thess. v.23. An expression 
used by no other writer of the New Testament, 


Heb. xiil. 18. Ipocetyeode rept typor. 

1 Thess. v. 25. Ipocevyeabe repli Hpov. 

Natural as this may appear at the close of a letter, it is peculiar to 
Paul and to our epistle. 

To the instances of phraseology thus collected, may be added the 
greeting and benediction at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
which is altogether Pauline. 


II. Words which are found, among the New Testament writers, only in Paul and in 
our epistle ; or, if found elsewhere, are used in a sense different from that in which 
they are here employed. 


"Aywy, in the sense of Christian effort, either in performing duties, or 
bearing trials, Heb. xii. 1. 1 Tim. vi. 12. 2 Tim. iv. 7. 

*Adedgol, brethren of Christ, considered in respect to his human nature, 
Heb. ii. 12, 17. Rom. viil. 29. 

’"Acéxysoc, inept, unfit, Heb. vi. 8. Tit. i. 16, 

*Avcwe, reverence, modesty, Heb. xii. 28. 1 Tim. ii, 9. 

Aipéopat, to choose, Heb. xi. 25. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Phil. i. 22. 

”“Axaxoc, innocent, Heb. vil. 26. Rom. xvi. 18. 

"Acbévea, sin, sinful infirmity, Heb. v. 2. Rom. v. 6. 

Acabijcn, will, testament, Heb. ix. 16. Gal. iii. 15. It is doubtful, 
however, whether dcaOij«n has the sense of testament, in the latter 
passage. 

*Edzic rpokexeevn, proffered Christian happiness, Heb. vi. 18. Col. i. 5. 

Exdvw, to be despondent, Heb. xii. 3. Gal. vi. 9. 

Evdvvapdw, to give strength ; (passively) to receive strength, Heb. xi. 
34. 2Tim.iv.17. 1 Tim. i. 12. 


44 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Karapyeiv, to annul, abolish, abrogate, Heb. ii. 14. Rom. iii. 3, 31 
vi. 6. 1 Cor. i. 28. Gal. v. 11, and elsewhere often in Pauli 
epistles. 

Kavynpua, glorifying, rejoicing, Heb. i. 6. Rom.iv. 2. 1 Cor. ix. 15. 

KXnpovépoc, lord, possessor, applied to Christ, Heb. i. 2. Rom. viii. 17. 

Aarpevery, (Covdevery, a Synonyme,) Oey fayrr, Heb. ix. 14. 1 Thess. 
16:9. 

My} (ov) Brexdpeva, the invisible objects of the future worid, Heb. xi. 1. 
2 Cor. iv. 18. 

‘Oporoyia, religion, religious, or Christian profession, Heb. ii. 1. ww. 
14... x..23.. 2 Cor. ixe 13: 

"Ovopa, majesty, or dignity, Heb.i. 4. Phil. 1.9, 10. Eph. i. 21. 
But although this sense of dvoua in Heb. i. 4, is adopted by some 
eminent critics, still it is more probable that it has the sense of appel- 
lation ; see Heb. 1. 5, seq. 

Od kriowc, nothing, Heb. iv. 13. Rom. viii. 39. 

Tedevdw, to consummate in happiness, to bestow the reward consequent 
on finishing a victorious course, Heb. ii. 10. vil. 28. x. 14. Phil. 
ni. 12. 

"Yxdoractc, confidence, Heb. ili. 14. ii. 1. 2 Cor. ix. 4. xi. 17. 

"Iepovoadipe érovparioc, the abode of the blessed, Heb. xii. 22; comp. 
‘Iepovoadyp cvw, Gal. iv. 26, in the like sense. 


Wil. Peculiarity of grammatical construction, in regard to tle use of the passive verb, 
instead of the active. 


Thus in Heb. vii. 11, we find the phrase, 6 Aade yap éx abr vevo- 
pobérnro, for the people under it [the Levitical priesthood] received the 
law ; where the nominative case of the person who is the object (not the 
subject) in the sentence, is joined with the passive of the verb; and 
this mode of construction is employed, instead of the active voice of 
the same verb, followed by the dative of the person who is the object ; 
e. £. vevomoBEernro hag. 

The like construction is found in Paul’s acknowledged writings. E. g. 
Rom. iii. 2, dre [avrot] ércorevOnoay ra Adyia Tov Ocov, they were intrusted 
with the oracles of God, instead of saying, the oracles of God were 
ntrusted to them. Rom. vi. 17—eic Oy wapecdOnre ruroy Cwayijc, ento 
which model of doctrine ye have been delivered, instead of which form 
or model of doctrine was delivered to you. 1 Tim. 1. 11, 0 smorevOnv 


§ 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 145 


éywv, wth which I was entrusted, instead of which was intrusted to me, 
5 éxcorevOn pot. 

This is a minuteness of grammatical construction, which a copyist of 
Paul would not be likely either to notice or to imitate. It affords, 
therefore, the more striking evidence, that all proceeded from the same 
hand. 

Finally, Paul frequently employs an adjective of the neuter gender, 
in order to designate generic quality, instead of using a synonymous 
noun: e.g.7d yywordy, Rom. 1,19; ro xpyorov, Rom. ll. 43 ro dvvaroy, 
Rom. ix. 22; 76 &dvvaroy, Rom. vii. 3; 70 aoOevec, 1 Cor. 1. 25. Com- 
pare ro &peraQeror, Heb. vi. 17; 10 davragopevov, Heb. xii. 21; ro ywdor, 
x 'S. 


§ 24. Remarks on the Comparisons made in the preceding sections. 


In the first place, without any hesitation, I concede thus much to 
those critics, who make light of the evidence drawn from such a com- 
parison as has now been made, viz. that no evidence of this nature can 
ever afford what is equivalent to a demonstration of the fact, for the 
support of which it is adduced. But, then, demonstration is what such 
a case neither admits nor demands. If the writer’s name were aflixed 
to the epistle, it would not amount to proof of this kind; for, might it 
not have been put there by another person, in order to answer some 
designs of his own? Nay, unless witnesses have given us testimony, 
who themselves saw Paul write the epistle, the proof is not of the highest 
kind that is possible ; nor even then would their testimony establish the 
fact, unless we could be well assured of their credibility. By such a 
criterion, however, the genuineness of no writing, ancient or modern, can 
be examined. It is generally enough for us, that an author’s name is 
affixed to a writing. Prima facie, it is evidence that it belongs to him ; 
and it must be regarded as sufficient evidence, until it is contradicted 
either expressly, or by implication, 

Let us suppose now, that, after an author has published many pieces, 
and his style and sentiments have become well known, he publishes a 
composition of any kind, without affixing his name to it; can there be 
no adequate, no satisfactory evidence, that it belongs to him ? 

This is the very question before us. I grant that similarity, or even 
sameness of sentiment, in different pieces, does not certainly prove iden- 
tity of authorship; for the friends, or imitators, or disciples of any 
distinguished man, may imbibe the same sentiments which he inculcates, 

L 


146 § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


and exhibit them in similar words and phrases. I grant that the primi- 
tive teachers of Christianity were agreed, and must have been agreed, 
(supposing that they were under divine guidance,) as to the fundamental 
doctrines of the gospel. But in respect to the mode of representing 
them; in regard to the style, and diction, and urgency with which 
particular views of doctrine are insisted on; what can be more various 
and diverse than the epistles of Paul, and James, and Peter, and John ? 

The reply to this, by critics who entertain sentiments different from 
those which I have espoused, is, that ‘‘ the writer of the epistle to the 
Hebrews was an intimate friend, or a studious imitator, of Paul; a man 
of talents, who, with unqualified admiration of the apostle’s sentiments, 
mode of reasoning, and even choice of words, closely imitated him in 
all these particulars. Hence the similarity between the writings of Paul 
and the epistle to the Hebrews.” 

The posstbility of this cannot be denied. Designed imitation has, in 
a few instances, been so successful as to deceive, at least for a while, the 
most sharp-sighted critics. Witness the imitation of Shakspeare which 
a few years ago was palmed upon the English public, as the work of that 
distinguished poet himself. Witness also the well-known and long con- 
troverted fact, in respect to the pieces ascribed to Ossian, which are now 
known to be a forgery. But, after all, such attempts have very seldom 
been successful, even where the most strenuous efforts have been made 
at close imitation; and these, with all the advantages which a modern 
education could afford. How few, for example, of the multitudes, who 
have aimed at copying the style of Addison or Johnson with the greatest 
degree of exactness, have succeeded even in any tolerable measure ; and 
none in such a way, that they are not easily distinguished from the 
models which they designed to imitate. 

Just so it was, in the primitive age of the church. The Christian 
world was filled with gospels and epistles, ascribed to Paul, and Peter, 
and other apostles and disciples. Yet no one of these succeeded in 
gaining any considerable credit among the churches; and what little 
was ever gained by any of them, proved to be temporary, and of very 
small influence. This was not owing to want of exertion; for strenuous 
efforts were made by writers to imitate the apostolic manner of writing, 
so as to gain credit for their supposititious pieces. But all of them 
failed. Indeed, nothing can be more egregious, or striking, than the 
failure. A comparison of any of the apocryphal writings of the New 
Testament, with the genuine writings of the same, shows a difference 


§ 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 147 


heaven-wide between them, which the most undistinguishing intellect can 
hardly fail to discern. 

If, then, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was an imitator, a 
designed and close imitator, of the apostle Paul, he has succeeded, in 
such a way as no other writer of those times, or any succeeding ones, 
ever did. He has produced a composition, the sentiments of which, in 
their shade, and colouring, and proportion, (so far as his subjects are 
common with those in the acknowledged epistles of Paul,) are altogether 
Pauline. Nay, he has preserved not only the order of writing which 
Paul adopts ; but his mode of reasoning, his phraseology, and even his 
choice of peculiar words, or words used in a sense peculiar to the 
apostle. The imitation goes so far, it extends to so many particulars, 
important and unimportant, that, if our epistle was not written by 
Paul, it must have been an imitation of him which was the effect 
of settled design, and was accomplished only by the most strenuous 
effort. 

But here, while I acknowledge the possibility of such an imitation, I 
must, from thorough conviction, say, that the probability of it does seem 
to be very small. With Origen, I must, after often-repeated study of 
this epistle, say, The sentiments are wonderful, and in no way behind 
those of the acknowledged writings of the apostles: ra vohpara rife 
exisohijc Oavpaow est, Kai ov OevTépa THY aroso\uKGY dpodoyoupévwY 
ypapparwy, Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 25. I cannot find any higher intensity 
of mind ; any more exalted conceptions of the true nature of Christianity, 
as a spiritual religion; any higher views of God and Christ, or of the 
Christian’s privileges and his obligations to believe in, love, and obey 
the Saviour; any more noble excitements to pursue the Christian course, 
unawed by the threats and unallured by the temptations of the world ; 
or any so awful representations of the fearful consequences of unbelief, 
and of defection from Christianity. The man who wrote this epistle, 
has no marks of a plagiarist, or of an imitator, about him. Nothing can 
be more free and original than his thoughts, reasonings, and mode of 
expressing them. It is most evident, that they flow directly and warm 
from the heart. They are “ thoughts that breathe, and words that 
burn.” Where, in all the ancient world, did ever a plagiarist, or an 
tnitator, write in this manner? A man who could form such conceptions 
in his mind, who could reason, and exhort, in such an impressive and 
awful manner; has he any need of imitating—even Paul himself? No; 
it may be said of him, (what Paul, on another occasion, said of himself 


148 § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


in comparison with his brethren,) that “he was not a whit behind the 
very chiefest of the apostles.” 

Then, how could such a man be concealed, in the first ages of the 
church, when the memory of those who were very distinguished has been 
preserved so distinct, and with so much care and reverence, by ecclesi- 
astical tradition? Men, who can write in this manner, cannot remain 
concealed any where. And the writer of such an epistle, it would seem, 
must have acted a part not less conspicuous than that of the great 
apostle of the Gentiles himself. 

But antiquity, we are told, has attributed this epistle to distinguished 
men in the early church; to Clement of Rome, to Luke, or to Barnabas; 
each of whom is known to have been the warm friend and admirer 
of Paul. 

I know this has been often alleged. But, fortunately, there are 
extant writings of each of these persons, with which our epistle may be 
compared ; and which serve to show how little foundation there is for 
such an opinion. But of this, more hereafter. I merely say, at present, 
that the great body of critics, for some time past, have agreed in reject- 
ing the opinion, which ascribes our epistle to either of the authors just 
mentioned. 

Who, then, did write it, if Paul did not? And what is to be gained, 
by endeavouring to show the possibility that some other person wrote 
it, when so many circumstances unite in favour of the general voice 
of the primitive ages, that this apostle was the author? That the 
church, during the first century after the apostolic age, ascribed it to 
some one of the apostles, is clear from the fact, that it was inserted 
among the canonical books of the churches in the East and the West; 
that it was comprised in the Peshzto; in the old Latin version; and 
was certainly admitted by the Alexandrine and Palestine churches. 
Now, what apostle did write it, if Paul did not? Surely neither John, 
nor Peter, nor James, nor Jude. The difference of style is too striking, 
between their letters and this, to admit of such a supposition. But 
what other apostle, except Paul, was ever distinguished in the ancient 
church as a writer? None; and the conclusion, therefore; seems to be 
altogether a probable one, that he was the writer. Why should all the 
circumstances which speak for him, be construed as relating to some 
unknown writer? Are the sentiments unworthy of him? Are they 
opposed to what he has inculcated? Do they differ from what he has 
taught? Neither. Why not, then, admit the probability that he was 


§ 25. OBJECTIONS, 149 


the author? Nay, why not admit that the probability is as great as the 
nature of the case (the epistle being anonymous) could be expected to 
afford? Why should there be any more objection to Paul as the author 
of this epistle, than to any other man ? 

My own conviction, if I may be permitted to express it, is as clear in 
respect to this point, as from its nature I could expect it to be. I began 
the examination of the subject unbiassed, if I was ever unbiassed in the 
examination of any question; and the evidence before me has led me to 
such a result. 

But the arguments, which are urged against the opinion that I have 
now endeavoured to defend remain to be examined. They must not be 
passed over in silence, nor any of them he kept out of sight, to which 
importance can reasonably be attached. 


§ 25. Objections. 


The objections made to the opinion, that Paul was the author of our 
epistle, are numerous. All the hints which ancient writers have given, 
by way of objection, have been brought forward, of late, and urged with 
great zeal and ability. Arguments internal and external, of every kind, 
have been insisted on. Indeed, the attack upon the Pauline origin of 
our epistle has been so warmly and powerfully made, by the last and 
present generation of critics on the continent of Europe, that most who 
are engaged in the study of sacred literature, seem inclined to think that 
the contest is over, and that victory has been won. So much, at least, 
must be conceded, viz. that those who admit the Pauline origin of this 
epistle, must make more strenuous efforts than they have yet made, in 
order to defend their opinion, and to satisfy objectors. To do this, is 
indeed a most laborious, and in many cases exceedingly repulsive task ; 
for of such a nature are many of the objections, thrown out at random, 
and asserted with confidence, that an attack which cost but a few 
moments’ effort on the part of the assailant, costs days and weeks of 
labour, on the part of him who makes the defence. 

The question, however, is too important to be slightly treated. ‘ Nor 
will it suffice for those who defend the Pauline origin of our epistle, 
merely to select a few specimens of argument on the part of their oppo- 
nents, and, showing the insufficiency or inaccuracy of these, make their 
appeal to the reader’s sympathies, assuring him, that the rest of the 
arguments employed by their opponents are of a similar nature. There 
are readers, (and such are the men whose opinion on subjects of this 


15) § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


nature is most to be valued,) who will not be satisfied with cursory, hasty, 
half-performed examination ; and who, when you show them that one or 
more of an opponent’s arguments is unsound, will not believe it to follow, 
of course, that all of them must be so. Above all, one must expect, that 
many doubters of the genuineness of our epistle, will not be satisfied 
with having only one side of the question presented. It is reasonable 
that they should not; and if the objections, which have weight in their 
minds, cannot be as satisfactorily answered, as from the nature of the 
case might be justly expected, then let them have so much weight as is 
properly due to them. 

It is but fair to warn the reader, that in entering on this part of our 
subject, his patience will be tried, by the length and minuteness of the 
examination. Perhaps those only, who fully know the present state of 
critical effort and opinion with respect to the literature of our epistle, 
will be able to find an adequate apology for such particularity as the 
sequel exhibits. But such probably will feel, that the time has come, 
when objections must either be fully and fairly met, or those who 
defend the Pauline origin of our epistle must consent to give up their 
opinion, if they would preserve the character of candour. The present 
leaning of criticism is strongly against this origin; and it is high time 
that the subject should receive an ample discussion. 

Whether the question at issue has been deeply, fundamentally, and 
patiently examined, by the principal writers who have given a tone to 
the present voice of critics, I will not venture either to affirm or to deny. 
I shall leave it to the reader, when he shall have gone through with an 
examination of these writers, to speak his own feelings. 


§ 26. Objections by Bertholdt considered. 


Bertholdt has collected and embodied all the objections made by pre- 
vious writers, which are worthy of particular consideration, in his Intro- 
duction to the books of the Old and New Testament. To these he has 
added some, which apparently were originated by himself. I shall 
briefly state his objections; subjoining to each, as I proceed, such 
remarks as the nature of the case may seem to demand. 

(1.) ‘* It is a suspicious circumstance, and against the opinion that 
Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, that he has not subscribed his 
name; since-he says, in 2 Thess. ii. 17, that it was his practice to do 
this in order to show that letters, purporting to be his, might thus be 
certainly known as being genuine.” 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 151 


The reply to this is obvious. After Paul had written his first epistle 
to the Thessalonian church, in which he had mentioned the second coming 
of Christ, it appears that some one had written another letter, counter- 
feiting his name, in which the day of the Lord had been represented as 
very near. On this account, Paul says, in his second letter to the same 
church, ‘‘ Be not agitated by any message, or by any epistle as from me, 
in respect to the day of the Lord, as being already at hand,” ii.2. And 
then, to avoid the effects of any misrepresentation of this nature, for the 
future, he says, at the close of the letter, ili. 17, “‘ This salutation from 
me, Paul, by my own hand. This is the proof [viz. of the genuineness of 
my letter] in every epistle [i. e. to your church;] so I write.” 

Let it now be noted, that the epistles to the Thessalonians were the 
first, in regard to time, which Paul wrote to any church; at least, the 
first that are now extant. Under circumstances like these, when letters 
to the Thessalonians had been forged in his name, can the assurance that 
he subscribes all his letters to them with his own hand, be taken as a 
proof, that, in all his future life, he should never address an anonymous 
letter to any church, in any circumstances ? 

(2.) «* No good reason can be given why Paul should conceal his 
name. Does he not intimate, at the close of the letter, that he is yet in 
prison, but expects soon to be set at liberty? Does he not ask their 
prayers that he may be speedily restored? And does he not promise 
them a visit, in company with Timothy, if his return be speedy? Why 
should Paul attempt to conceal himself, when he has developed circum- 
stances which evidently imply that he was not concealed, and that he did 
not desire to be so?” 

But if this objection be of any validity, it is just as valid in respect to 
any other person, as to the writer of this letter. Why should any other 
writer attempt to conceal himself, when most clearly the tenor of the 
letter implies, that he must be known to those whom he immediately 
addresses? If there be any incongruity here, it applies just as much to 
any other writer, as to Paul. 

But is there no good reason imaginable, why Paul should have with- 
held his name? If he designed the epistle to be a circular among the 
Jews generally, (which from the nature of the discussion, comprising 
topics so interesting to them all, I am altogether inclined to believe was 
the case,) then might he not, as a measure of prudence, omit prefixing or 
subscribing his name directly, lest the prejudices of those Christians wh¢ 
were zealots for the law might be excited, on the first inspection of his 


152 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


epistle? Ultimately, he might be, and must be known, if the letter was 
waced back to the church to whom it was first sent, and the inquiries 
nade respecting it, which the circumstances mentioned at the close of it 
would naturally suggest. To this the writer would probably feel no 
objection; trusting that the arguments suggested in it might disarm pre- 
judiced readers, before they came to the certain knowledge of the author. 
Is it an unknown, unheard-of case, that men should write letters, anony- 
mously at first, but afterwards avow them? Or that they should write 
letters, anonymous, but so circumstanced, and designedly so circum- 
stanced, that inquiry might ultimately lead to a knowledge of the 
author ? 

Granting, however, that neither the reason of Clement of Alexandria, 
nor of Eusebius, nor of Jerome, nor the reason now given, for the 
apostle’s withholding his name, is satisfactory; still is there no possibility 
that adequate reason may have existed for the letter being sent without 
the subscription of the writer’s name, of which reason we are ignorant ? 
Let it be whoever it may, that wrote the letter, does not the same 
difficulty, in every case, attend the explanation of its being anonymous ? 
I can see no difference; unless we assume the position, that the writer 
meant it should be attributed to an apostle, and therefore concealed his 
own name. Such a writer, we cannot with any probability suppose the 
author of our epistle to have been. All—all is sincerity, fervent bene- 
volence, ingenuous and open-hearted dealing, throughout the whole. 

Besides, is the case in hand one that has no parallel? Certainly not. 
The first epistle of John is altogether destitute of the author’s name, or ot 
any internal marks that will lead us to know him, except what are con- 
tained in the style itself. Why should it be more wonderful, that Paul 
should write an anonymous letter, than that John should do it ? 

(3.) “The Jews of Palestine had a great antipathy to Paul, and 
always persecuted him, when he came among them. How can it be 
supposed, that he should have addressed to them a letter, with the 
expectation that it would be read and regarded by them ?” 

That some of the zealots for the law, in Judea, were strongly opposed 
to Paul, is sufficiently evident from the history of his visits to Jerusalem. 
But, that the apostles and teachers there were his warm and decided 
friends, is equally evident from the same source. Moreover, that there 
were private Christians there, who cherished a very friendly feeling toward 
him, is evident from Acts xxi. 17, where, on his last visit there, the 
brethren (oi adedgot) are said to have received him gladly. The perse- 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 153 


tution, which ensued at this time, was first excited, as the historian 
expressly states, by Jews from Asia Minor, xxi. 27. But it is unneces- 
sary to dwell on this. At Ptolemais, xxi. 7, and at Cesarea, xxi. 8 seq., 
he had warm friends ; and at the latter place, he abode two whole years 
as a prisoner, before his removal to Rome. Were there no friends of 
his, then, in Palestine, among whom he could hope to find a listening 
ear? no Christians, on whom he could hope that his arguments would 
make an impression? And after all, did he ever cease to speak to the 
Jews, to admonish them, to dispute with them, in order to vindicate the 
religion which he had embraced, because they were prejudiced against him ? 
How unlike himself, then, does the objection which we are considering 
represent Paul to be! He did not confer with flesh and blood; he 
believed that the armour in which he was clad, was “ mighty, through 
God, to the pulling down of strong holds.” 

(4.) ‘* But there is internal evidence, from the style of the epistle to 
the Hebrews, and from circumstances mentioned in it, which render it 
impossible to believe that Paul was the author of it.” 

This objection is a very ancient one. It was felt, as we have seen, by 
Clement of Alexandria; deeper still, by Origen; and adverted to by 
Eusebius, and other fathers of the church. It would seem, that there 
must be some real foundation for an objection, so long, so often, and 
confidently urged. Late critics have attributed an irresistible power to 
it. Eichhorn and Bertholdt maintain, that it lies so upon the very face 
of the whole epistle, that every reader must be impressed with it. So 
strong, indeed, are their impressions with respect to it, that they seem to 
require no other argument, in order to satisfy them that Paul could not 
have written the epistle to the Hebrews. 

That there are cases, where the general character of the style of one 
piece, is so plainly different from another, as to leave no doubt on the 
mind of a discerning reader that both did not, nay even could not, come 
from the same pen, certainly cannot be called in question. Who could 
ever attribute the epistles of John, to Paul, or to Peter, or to James? 
But, that there are other cases, where the characteristic marks are not 
so discernible, and about which there may be a great difference of feeling 
in respect to the style, is well known. For example; the book of 
Deuteronomy is ascribed by one set of critics, of high acquisitions and 
refined taste, of great acuteness and discriminating judgment, to Moses 
as the author, because it betrays every where, as they think, the most 
lubitable marks of his style and spirit. Another class of critics, 


154 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


equally eminent for literary acquisition and discrimination, confidently 
draw the conclusion, that Moses could not have been the author, from 
the feeling which they have, on reading it, that it is composed in a manner 
totally diverse from the style and spirit of Moses. 

Just such is the case, in regard to the speech of Elihu, in the book 
of Job. One party reject it as spurious, because their critecal taste 
leads them to do so; and another holds it to be genuine, for the 
like reason. 

Isaiah, too, has met with the same fate.- The last 26 chapters are now 
familiarly called Pseudo-Isaiah, by one party of critics; while another 
strive to vindicate the whole book as genuine. 

Each party is equally confident, and equally satisfied of the validity 
of their arguments. But what is the humble inquirer to do, in the midst 
of all these contests of taste and of opinion? How can he trust his 
feelings to decide, with confidence, in a case where the most acute and 
distinguishing critics differ in respect to the judgment that a critical 
tact should give? He cannot do it with safety. In what way, then, 
shall one who examines for himself, be able to arrive at any satisfactory 
conclusion? My answer, in all such cases, would be, MAKE THE 
ACTUAL COMPARISON ; collate sentiment with sentiment, phrase with 
phrase, words with words. This is the kind of proof that is palpable, 
and is not left to the uncertain tenor of feeling, excited by mere insulated 
perusal; a feelmg which, in cases where the composition read is in 
a foreign language, must be a very uncertain guide ; and which, even in 
our own vernacular language, not unfrequently misleads us. 

Origen, as he avers, found, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the thoughts 
of Paul; but the words, he thinks, are better Greek (é\Aqvixwrepa) than 
the apostle wrote. He, therefore, resorts to the supposition, that a 
translator had given to it its present Greek costume, who had received 
the sentiments from the mouth of Paul. But Eichhorn does not limit 
the difference, between the style of this epistle and those of Paul, to the 
quality of the-Greek. ‘‘ The manner of it,” says he, ‘‘ is more tranquil 
and logical than that in which Paul with his strong feelings could 
write. Every thing is arranged in the most exact order. The expression 
is well rounded, choice, and very clear in the representation which it 
makes. Paul is altogether different; he is unperiodical, mvolved, 
obscure, writes poor Greek, is given to rhapsody and aphorism,” Einl. 
§ 260. Bertholdt has repeated the same sentiment, in almost the saine 
words, in his Introduction to this epistle, § 646. 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 155 


If I might be allowed to express my own. feelings, after having, for 
many years, annually devoted myself to the explanation of this epistle, 
translated it with all the care which I could bestow upon it, and minutely 
weighed every expression and word in it, I should say, that nothing could 
be more unfortunately chosen, than the epithet, ‘ ruhig,” equable, tran- 
quil, void of excitement, which these distinguished critics have applied 
to its style. I appeal to every man’s feelings who reads it, and ask, Are 
there, in the whole book of God, any warnings so awful as here, and 
expressed with such mighty energy? Are there any threats of punish- 
ment for unbelief, so tremendous and impassioned as those in this 
epistle ? 

Then, as to ‘“ every thing being arranged in such exact order,” as they 
aver, ‘conclusion following conclusion, all in the manner of a good 
rhetorician ;” the instances above produced, and which might easily be 
increased, of enthymemes, and suspended construction, exactly in the 
manner of Paul, may help to judge of this. Moreover, let any one make 
the attempt to translate this epistle into his own vernacular language, 
and he will then see whether all is so well rounded and perspicuous, as 
these critics represent it to be. I find ellipsis as frequent here, as in 
Paul’s acknowledged writings. Any good translation, that exhibits the 
supply of these ellipses, and marks them by the common mode in which 
they are printed, demonstrates this to the eye. Hebraism I find here, as 
well and as often as in Paul. In short, I cannot but feel, in reading the 
epistle to the Hebrews, that the writer has reached the very summit of 
eloquence, and energy, and vivid representation, in many passages of his 
composition; and I am constrained to make a similar acknowledgment, 
in respect to many passages of the known epistles of Paul. I cannot per- 
ceive any striking diversity in regard to these characteristics. 

To what cause, now, can it be attributed, that feelings so very differ- 
ent, in respect to the character of the style, should arise in the minds of 
men, when they read the epistle in question? Two reasons for this, I 
apprehend, may be given. ‘The first and principal one is, that the main 
topics of this epistle are so diverse from those generally treated of in the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul, that they required, of course and from 
necessity, a variety of words, phrases, and ideas, that either are not 
common, or are not at all to be found in his other epistles. This I regard 
as chiefly the ground of the judgment which has so often been passed 
in respect to dissimilarity of style. The other is, that one comes to the 
reading of this epistle, with his feelings impressed by the circumstance, 


156 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


that there is a want of direct evidence about the author; and conse- 
quently so tuned, as to be strongly agitated by any thing, which may 
seem to increase or diminish the probability that Paul was the author 
of it. That the doctrinal views, contained in this epistle, have made many 
willing to get rid of its canonical authority, if it could be done, is not by 
any means improbable. After all, however, in a question where there 
is such a difference of sentiment in regard to style, among those who are 
capable of judging, the appeal must be made, and can be made, only to 
actual comparison. Such an appeal I have endeavoured to make. To 
array mere feeling or apprehension, arising from the perusal of the 
epistle, against actual comparison, can never be to judge by making use 
of the best means of judging. Origen’s authority, in this case, cannot 
go far with any one who chooses to examine and decide for himself. 
Origen, with all his talents and learning, was far enough from being a 
Cicero or a Quintilian, in respect to taste and nice discernment of differ- 
ences of style. He makes assertions equally confident, in other cases, that 
will not bear the test of examination ; and assertions, too, that have respect 
to the Greek language, his mother tongue. For example, he says that 
the want of the article before Oedc, in John i. 1, proves that the writer 
cannot have meant to designate the supreme God by this word. Now, 
whether the supreme God be meant, or not, can never be determined by 
such a rule; for it is usual, in the Greek language, that the predicate 
of a proposition should be without the article, while the subject com- 
monly has it. Moreover, in the very same chapter, Oed¢ stands without 
the article, in more than one instance, incontrovertibly, for the supreme 
God; e. g. in verses 6. 12, 13. 18. Whether Origen’s opinion, then, 
about the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, is well founded or not, is 
a proper subject of examination. The result of comparison has shown, 
that in respect to sentiment, phraseology, and diction, the epistle is 
filled with the peculiarities of Paul. I doubt whether any one of Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles, compared with the others, will supply more, er 
more exact resemblances. 

I know, indeed, that no critic can be argued out of feelings of this 
sort in respect to style. But he may reasonably be called upon to state 
the ground of those feelings ; specially so, when he asserts, with a con- 
fidence which is intended to influence others, that the style of the epistle 
to the Hebrews cannot be Paul’s. 

(5.) But Bertholdt has made the appeal to fact. He has produced 
words and expressions which, he says, ‘ are not Pauline, and which 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 157 


serve satisfactorily to show, that Paul could not have written the epistle 
to the Hebrews.” 1 proceed to examine them. 

(a) In Hebrews xiii. 7. 17. 24, the word jyyovpevoe is used for 
teachers ; Paul every where employs the word é.dcxador for this pur- 
pose,” p. 2937. 

The allegation, that Paul every where uses the word diddcKcadoe to 
designate teachers, is far from being correct. He uses, besides this, the 
words zpeourepoc, 1 Tim. v. 1.17.19; Tit.1.55 éioxoroc, Acts xx. 28 ; 
Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. ili. 2; Tit.i.7 5 zocyv, Eph. iv. 11. Very natural for 
Paul it must have been, to apply a variety of appellations to Christian 
ministers, which would correspond with those applied to religious teachers 
in the Jewish synagogues. These were DID, pastor, leader, guide, 
prefect ; IWTND, leader, guide ; TAI, ruler, prefect ; and nabN, guide, 
director. What could be more Seana then, than for Paul, when 
writing to Hebrews, to call the teachers in their churches jyyoupevor, which 
corresponds quite well with all of the above appellations, that they had 
been accustomed to give to their religious teachers? Besides, the argu- 
ment of Bertholdt, if admitted, would prove too much. The same mode 
of reasoning must lead us to conclude, that those epistles, in which 
Christian teachers are called éricxoror, cannot be reckoned as Paul’s, 
because diddoxador is not used instead of éricxoror. The same may be 
said, in respect to the use of the words zoupévec and zpecBirepr. The 
consequence would be, that several of Paul’s now acknowledged epistles 
could not be ascribed to him. But who, that knows the variety of 
appellations employed to designate teachers in the Jewish synagogues, 
can attribute any critical weight to the fact, that such a variety of Greek 
terms is used, corresponding with the Hebrew appellations that were 
familiar to those whom our author addressed? And of all these Greek 
names of pastors, certainly, none better corresponds with the Hebrew 
ones, than the word jjyotpevor, employed in our epistle. 

It may be added, too, that Paul employed a term here, not at all 
unique ; for the same appellation is given to teachers, in Luke xxii. 26; 
Acts xiv. 12; xv. 22. 

(b) ‘*In the epistle to the Hebrews, xcaréyew PeBatay is used for 
holding fast, Heb. ii. 6.14; and caréyew axdwH, in Heb. x. 23; while 
Paul uses only caréyew simply, 1 Cor. xi. 2; xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21.” 

On examination, I find the verb caréxw, in the sense of holding fast, 
carefully retaining, to be exclusively Pauline. This word, then, affords 
an argument, to establish a conclusion, the reverse of that for which it is 


158 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


adduced by Bertholdt. The addition of BeBaiay or dkXuH is evidently 
for the purpose merely of intensity ; just as we may join an adverb toa 
verb for this purpose, or we may refrain from the use of it, and still 
employ the same verb simply in the same sense. What could be more 
natural, now, than for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to employ 
words of intensity, while in the state of strongly excited feeling in 
which he wrote ? 

(c) ‘* In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find cic 7d dunvexée, vil. 3, and 
elc TO mayTedec, Vil. 25, used to designate the idea of for ever ; while 
Paul always uses eic¢ rove aidvac.” 

Our author also employs aiéy, in the epistle to the Hebrews, no less 
than nine times in the like way; viz. 1.8; v.6; vi. 20; vil. 17. 21. 
24, 28; xiii. 8.21. Is it a matter of wonder, then, that he should 
sometimes employ other words for the same purpose, which were syno- 
nymous ; specially, if those words belonged both to common and to 
Hebrew Greek ? Such is the fact, in respect to both the words in ques- 
tion. Arpyexéc 1s used by lian, Var. Hist. i. 19; by Appian, Bell. 
Civ. i. p. 682; Heliod. Ethiop. i. p. 25. Lucian, V. H. i. 19; by 
Symmachus, translator of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, Ps. xlvii. 
15. Tlayredéc is used by lian, vii. 2; xii. 20; by Josephus, Antiq. vi. 
2,3; and by Luke, xii. 11. 

But whether the sense of the word zavredéc, in Heb. vil. 25, is for 
ever, may be doubted. Its etymology would lead to the sense of pror- 
sus, omnino, i. e. entirely, altogether, thoroughly ; and so, many critics 
have construed it. Such is clearly the meaning of zavrredGe, e. g. Jos. 
Antiq. iv. 6, 5; 2 Macc. ili. 12. 31; vil. 40; and so Bretschneider 
construes ei¢ 70 wayredec, in Heb. vii. 25, in his recent Lexicon. 

But supposing it does mean for ever, in the case before us, can the 
argument, derived from the employment of such synonymes with eic¢ rove 
aiévac, as belong to common and to Hebrew Greek, be of any validity 
to show that Paul could not have written our epistle ? 

(d) “‘ Aidvec, in the sense of universe, is used only in the epistle to 
the Hebrews, i. 2; xi. 3. Paul employs other terms to designate the 
same idea, such as ra wayvra, &c.” 

Paul, in the phrase 7@ Baowet rHv aiwywy, 1 Tim. i. 17, has employed 
the word in the same sense as it is used in the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
and, as the use of the word aiwy, in such a sense is limited to Paul and 
to our epistle, so far as the New Testament is concerned, it would seem 
to prove the reverse of what Bertholdt has adduced it to establish. 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 159 


(e) “« The word wiarte is always used by Paul, in the restricted sense 
of riortc cic Inoovy Xpioroy; in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is employed 
in a much wider latitude.” 

So Bertholdt, p. 2939; and to the same purpose Eichhorn Einlet. p. 
462. This objection has been repeated, greatly magnified, and dwelt 
upon, by Schulz, Brief an die Hebrier, p. 112, seq.; and by Seyffarth, 
de Epist. ad Heb. indole, § 33. These latter writers represent xéaric, 
when used by Paul, as always having reference to Christ or the Chris- 
tian religion, as such; whereas ziorcc, in our epistle, relates, they aver, 
only to God or to things future, and means a firm confidence in the de- 
clarations of God respecting them; a sense in which, as they think, Paul 
never employs the word. 

I have united the objections and views of these writers under one 
head, in order to save the repetition of this subject. It deserves an 
attentive consideration. 

There can be no doubt that Paul, in a multitude of cases, employs 
niorec to designate belief in Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer. He 
often employs it to designate that state of mind, which trusts in his 
propitiatory sacrifice or blood as the means of salvation, in opposition to 
any trust or confidence in our own merit as the ground of acceptance. 
But to aver, that the author of our epistle does not disclose similar views 
in regard to the nature and importance of faith or belief in Christ, 
seems to be quite contrary to the whole tenor of the epistle. What is 
the object of the whole? Plainly, to prevent apostacy, i. e. renunciation 
of belief in Christ. But why is such a renunciation criminal and dan- 
gerous? Because Christ is of infinite dignity, and because, when 
belief in his blood is renounced, ‘“‘ there remaineth no further sacrifice 
for sin.” To what purpose is the awful example of the effects of unbe- 
lief, proposed in chapter iil., except to warn the Hebrews against 
renouncing belief in Christ? To what purpose are the parallels drawn, 
in chapter iil.—x., between Christ and Moses; Christ and Melchise- 
dek ; and also between the great High Priest of the Christian religion, 
and the Jewish priests; between the sacrifice offered by the former, and 
the sacrifices made by the latter—but for the sake of warning the Hebrews 
against renouncing their fazth in Christ? Plainly for no other purpose. 
All the warnings, reproofs, and tremendous denunciations in the epistle, 
converge to the same point; they all have a bearing upon the same spe- 
cific object. 


160 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


In respect to the allegation, that faith, in our epistle, is employed 
to denote belief or confidence in the declarations of God, specially with 
regard to the objects of a future world; this is true. But it is true, 
also, that Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, employs it in a similar 
manner. E. g.in Rom. iv. 17—23, Paul represents Abraham, under the 
most unpromising circumstances, as believing that God would raise up 
from him, already vevexpwuévoy, a numerous progeny. ‘This belief he 
represents as an act of faith, ériorevoe—pr aoOnvhoac rh miorer—ov 
dtexolOn TH amcorig—rAnpogopnOeic—éhoyioby QO ’APpaap [fh wiorte] etc 
Cxnoavyny. On the other hand, our epistle, xi. 8, seq., represents 
Abraham as going out from his country, and sojourning in a strange land, 
miore. By faith, also he obtained a son, even when he was vevexpwpeé- 
voc, Xi. 12, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring. Both these 
accounts characterise this whole transaction in the same way. Both 
describe the same acts as being fazth, on the part of Abraham. Both 
describe his physical state, by calling him vevecpwyevoy. Both treat the 
whole transaction as a rare instance of the power of faith, and appeal to 
it as an example most worthy of imitation. Surely here is something 
different from discrepancy of views in these writers. Is there not a 
coincidence, which is altogether striking, both in the manner and la»- 
guage of the epistles ? 

But there are other circumstances in the account of Abraham, which 
deserve distinct notice. Paul, in Rom, iy. 17, seq., represents Abraham 
as believing the divine assurance, that he should become the father of 
many nations; the assurance of that God, ‘‘ who restoreth the dead to 
life, and calleth things that are not, into being.” In this expression, 
the apostle evidently refers to the belief which Abraham entertained, 
that, in case he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, God could and would 
raise him from the dead, or call another son into being, from whom a 
numerous progeny should descend. 

So in Heb. xi. 17, seq., the writer represents Abraham as offering up 
Isaac, in faith that God was able to raise him from the dead, from 
whence, as it were, he did obtain him, i. e. Isaac sprung from one 
apparently vevexpwpevoc, ver. 12. In both cases the writers have charac- 
terised the state of Abraham’s mind, on this occasion, by representing it 
as faith, éxiorevoe, mioret. In both, they disclose the same specific 
views of the point on which the faith of Abraham rested, and they cha- 
racterise it in the same way. 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY PERTHOLDT. 16i 


Is not here a minute coincidence of thought, expression, and manner 
of representing faith, which creates strong presumption in favour of the 
opinion, that the writer in both cases was the same person. 

Again, in Heb. xi., Noah is represented as being divinely admonished 
respecting future occurrences, and as preparing an ark for his safety, in 
consequence of his faith in the admonition which he had received. 
The writer, then, proceeds to say, that by this act, he became an heir, 
rie Kara risty dcKaoovyye, of that justification which is by faith; the 
very expression, and the very idea, which Paul so often repeats in his 
acknowledged epistles, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. What 
other writer of the New Testament, except Paul, has employed such an 
expression ? 

It is true, indeed, that the author of our epistle does represent faith, 
in Heb. xi., as confidence in the declarations of God respecting future 
things. But it is equally true, that this was the view of it which he was 
naturally led to present, from the circumstances of the case before him. 
His appeal was to the worthies of former days, as examples of belief. 
Belief in what? Not in Christianity surely, which had not then been 
revealed. Could the writer, when characterizing the actual nature of 
their faith, represent it as a belief in that which was not yet disclosed to 
them? Surely not; but he must represent, and does represent it, as a 
belief in what God had disclosed to them. The nature of the case 
rendered it impossible that their faith should be represented in any 
other light than this. 

Just so Paul, in Rom. iv., represents the faith of Abraham as justify- 
ing faith, and appeals to it in proof of the fact, that faith is a means of 
justification. Yet not a word is said there of Abraham’s belief in Christ. 
In what respect does this case differ from that of all the examples cited 
in Heb. xi.? Rather, is there not a sameness of principle in the two 
instances of faith? Both respect future things depending on the promise 
of God; neither have any special reference to Christ. 

The truth is, that fazth, in its generic nature, is belief, or confidence 
in the promises or revelations of God. Now, whether these respect 
things future, things of another world, or things past, or the nature, 
character, offices, and work of the Messiah, faith receives them all. 
Faith, therefore, in the ancients, who gave entire credit to what was 
revealed to them, was the same prenczple as faith in him who believes in 
Christ, because Christ is proposed to him. Circumstances only make any 
apparent difference in the case. The disposition is always the same. 

M 


162 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


That Paul thought thus of this subject, is clear enough from the 
example of Abraham, which he cites as a signal instance of justifying 
faith, in Rom. iv. But, besides this, we have other proof that Paul has 
not always represented faith as having reference only to Christ, but also 
represented it, as it commonly appears in our epistle. So 2 Cor. v. 7, 
We walk by faith, and not by sight, i.e. we live as those who confide 
or believe in the realities of a future world, not like those who regard 
only visible objects. So too, in 1 Cor. xii, 13. In 1 Thess. i. 8, we 
have # zistc bur t mpdc rov Oeoy ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, wiste Ev TO advT@ wvEevpare. 
So in 1 Cor. xiii. 2; 2Cor.iv.13; Eph. vi. 16; 1 Thess. v. 8, and in 
many other passages, faith has a variety of meanings, and is not limited 
to belief in Christ only, 

I am unable to see, therefore, why this argument should be so strenu- 
ously urged, as it is by Schulz and others, and relied upon as so decisive. 
I can see no other difference between the fazth of our epistle, and that 
which the writings of Paul present, than what the nature of the examples 
to which our author appealed necessarily requires. When Paul makes 
a like appeal, he treats the subject-in the same way, Rom. iv. And 
nothing can be farther from correctness, than to aver that Paul always 
employs wistc the sense of Christianity, believing on Christ. Merely 
opening a Greek lexicon or concordance, on the word zisic, is ample 
refutation of this assertion. Paul employs the word, in all the latitude 
which is elsewhere given it in the New Testament; and that embraces 
a great variety of specific significations, nearly all of which range 
themselves under the general idea of confidence in the divine decla- 
rations. 

That it is the great object of our epistle to inculcate belief in Christ, 
and to warn the Hebrews against unbelief, I suppose will not be denied. 
What foundation, then, can Schulz have for saying, that ‘‘ the Pauline 
idea of belief is altogether foreign to this writer?” Above all, how 
could he add, ‘‘ A sentence, like the Pauline one, 0 ob« && misewc, dpapria 
és?, would sound strange enough in the epistle to the Hebrews.” Yet, 
strange as it may seem, in Heb. ix. 6, we have, ywpic 02 misewe acuvarov 
evapesijoa [Oeg. | 

On the whole, the representation of faith, in our epistle, as it respects 
the case of Abraham and Noah, is not only exactly the same as that of 
Paul's, but, in the mode of representation, are found such strong resem- 
plances, as to afford no inconsiderable ground for supposing that the 
writer of both must have been the same person. 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 163 


(1) “ Sapxexde, in the sense of transient, temporary, is used only in 
the epistle to the Hebrews.” ; 

But, first, this is a disputed reading. Not to rely on this, however, 
capkixdc in the sense of weak, imperfect, is common in Paul; a sense 
substantially the same with the one demanded here. Bretschneider 
renders it, in Heb. vii. 16, ad naturam animalem spectans ; which is a 
usual sense, but not admissible here, on account of the antithesis, Zwijc 
axaradirov. Let it be, then, an drat Neyopuevoy as to sense here; are 
there not such in nearly all of Paul’s epistles? E. g. é£ovoia, 1 Cor. 
xi. 10, in the sense of vez/; in 1 Cor. ix. 12, in the sense of property ; 
and so of many other words. 

(g) ‘‘The phrase oixouvpévn péddXovoa, Heb. il. 5, for the Christian 
dispensation, is no where found in Paul’s acknowledged epistles, in 
which he always employs aidy pédXwy.” 

But are not oixovpévn and aiwy employed as synonymes in the New 
Testament? Both correspond to the Heb. poly. Besides, in Heb. vi. 5, 
this very phrase, ai#y pé\Xwy, is employed by the writer in the sense of 
Christian dispensation. Must the same writer always employ the very 
same phraseology, when he has a choise of synomymous words ? 

Besides, it is not true that Paul uses the phrase aiwy péAwy for the 
Christian dispensation. Once only does he employ it, Eph. i, 21, dnd 
then simply in the sense of future world. 

(h) ‘‘ But where is Christ called a High Priest and an Apostle, 
except in Heb. il. 1.? It cannot be imagined, that the reverence 
which the apostles bore to their Master, would permit them to call him 
an apostle.” 

As to the appellation apyrepedc, nothing could be more natural, than 
for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to apply this to Christ. He 
labours to prove, that Christianity has a preference over Judaism in all 
respects; that, consequently, it has a High-priest exalted above the 
Jewish one. How could the writer avoid calling Christ a High Priest ? 
If Paul has no where done this in his acknowledged epistles, it may be 
for the obvious reason, that he has no where drawn such a comparison 
in them. 

In respect to aréorodoc, Wetstein has shown, on John ix. 7, that one 
of the names which the Jews applied to their expected Messiah, was 
mous , 1. e. sent, apostle. Besides, a common name of a prefect of 
the Jewish synagogue, was WAT mou, amdaroXog Tije ExkAntiac; in the 
Apocalypse, cyyedos ric excAnolac. Now, the object of the writer, 

M 2 


164 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


in Heb, iii. 1, seq. is, to compare Christ as appointed over the household | 
of God, with Moses in a similar office. Since then mu meant curator 
edis sacre, edituus, and such an office was the very object of compa- 
rison, nothing can be more natural, than that our author should have 
named Christ mou 1. €. aadarokoc. See Comm. on Heb. ii. 1. 


And why should it be considered as incompatible with that reverence 
which Paul had for Christ, that he should call him &zéerodkoc ? The same 
Paul, in Rom. xv. 8, calls Jesus Christ éudxovoy rijc weptropijc. Is Cutxovoc, 
a more honorable appellation than ardéarodoc? Or because Paul calls 
Christ duakovoc in this case, are we to draw the inference, that he did not 
write the epistle to che Romans, since this word is nowhere else applied 
by him in this manner? Such a conclusion would be of the same nature, 
and of the same validity, as that which Bertholdt has drawn from the 
use of dzdarodog and apyxtepeve in the epistle to the Hebrews. 


Thus much for words and phrases. Bertholdt next brings forward 
sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews, which are diverse, he says, from 
Paul’s, if not in opposition to them. 

(1.) “ In Heb. x. 25, seq., the speedy coming of Christ is mentioned ; 
and so it is often by Paul. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is 
evidently a moral coming, a moral change; whereas Paul every where 
speaks of it as an actual visible coming of Christ.” 

This difficulty depends entirely upon the writer’s exegesis. Whatever 
the nature of the coming of Christ may be, I venture to say, it is pal- 
pably represented in the same manner, in the epistle to the Hebrews 
and in the epistles of Paul. Indeed, so far has the representation, in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, appeared to be from being plainly a moral one, 
that some of the most distinguished commentators have understood it, as 
having respect to the natural changes that are to take place, when 
Christ shall come at the end of the world. So Storr; and others, also, 
before and after him. Paul surely has little or nothing, which more cer- 
tainly designates the actual, visible coming of Christ, than this epistle. 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5, 6. Phil. i. 10. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iti. 13. v. 1—6; 
ver. 23. 1 Tim. vi. 13—16. Tit. ii. 11—13. Compare, also, with these 
representations, 2 Thess. ii. 1—10, where Paul explains his views in 
respect to the coming of Christ. Indeed, so much alike is the represen- 
tation of this subject, in the epistle to the Hebrews and in Paul’s epistles, 
that many critics have used this very circumstance as a proof, that the 
author of both must have been the same person; an argument not valid 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 165 


however, because the same representation is common to other writers of 
the New Testament. Still, the mention of this serves to show, that the 
exegesis of Bertholdt, in this case, is not to be relied on with such con- 
fidence as he places in it. 

(2.) ‘* According to the epistle to the Hebrews, the propitiatory office 
of Christ continues for ever in the heavenly world, vii. 24, seq.; whereas 
Paul, on the contrary, considers the atonement for men as already com- 
pleted by the death and resurrection of Jesus, Rom. iv. 25.” 

This argument is surely not well chosen. The author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews says, in so many words, that the High Priest of Christianity 
had no daily necessity, like the Jewish priests, to make offerings first for 
his own transgressions and then for those of the people; ‘‘ for this he 
did once for all, when he made an offering of himself, vil. 27.” And 
again: ‘* Nor had he need often to repeat the sacrifice of himself, (as 
the high priest yearly enters into the holy place with blood not his own;) 
for then he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world; 
but now, in this last age, he has appeared, once for all, to put away sin 
by the sacrifice of nimself. And as all men die, once for all, and then 
go to the judgment; so Christ was offered up, once for all, to take away 
the sins of many; and when he shall make his second appearance, it 
will not be to atone for sin, but to bestow salvation on those who look 
for him,” ix. 25—28, How can words make it more certain, that the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews considered the propitiation or atone- 
ment as entirely completed, by the death of Christ ? 

It is true, indeed, that the same author also represents Christ as for 
ever living, and exercising the duties of his office as an intercessor (or 
helper) for the saints, before God: ‘‘ He, because he continueth for ever, 
hath an unchangeable priesthood; whence he is able to save to the 
uttermost those who come unto God through him, since he ever lives to 
intercede for (évrvyydvev, to help) them,” vii. 24,25. With which agrees 
another representation, in ix. 24; ‘ Christ has entered into heaven itself, 
henceforth to appear before God for us.” 

But are these sentiments foreign to Paul, as Bertholdt alleges; ** Who 
shall accuse the elect of God?—God acquits them. Who shall pass 
sentence of condemnation upon them? Christ, who died for them ? 
Rather, who is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, and who 
intercedes for (évrvyxavet, helps) them,” Rom. viii. 33. 

Here is not only the very same idea as in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
but even the very same term (évrvyxdvewv) is used in both. Instead then 


166 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


of affording any evidence against the opinion, that Paul wrote the epistle 
to the Hebrews, the point in question affords evidence in favour of it. 
Paul, and Paul only, of all the apostolic authors, has presented the idea 
of the intercession of Christ in the heavenly world. To say the least, 
the whole mode of representing this subject is Pauline. The only dif- 
ference between the epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews, 
is, that in the latter case, the nature of the argument which the writer 
had employed, required him to represent Christ as performing the func- 
tions of a priest in the heavenly world. But it is palpably the interces- 
sory function, which he is represented as continuing there to perform, in 
the passages which I have cited. 

(3.) ‘* The doctrine respecting the Logos, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
is of Alexandrine hue, and evidently resembles that of John, and not of 
Paul. E. g. the divine Logos (Adyoc Oeov) is quick and powerful, &c., 
iv. 12, 13; also, Christ is a priest, cara dvvapuy Cwije axaradvrov, vii. 16. 
So, too, when Christ is represented as making an offering dua wvebvparoc 
aiwyiov, ix. 14, this, as well as the other cases, coincides with the views 
and representations of John, and not of Paul.” 

If now a critic will do such violence to the laws of exegesis, as to con- 
strue these passages so as to make them have respect to the doctrine of 
the Logos, the best way to answer him would be, to show that his prin- 
ciples of interpretation are without any good foundation. I cannot turn 
aside to do this here, as it more properly belongs to the exegetical part 
of the work. I shall content myself with merely observing, that one of 
the last ideas, which can well be deduced from the passage respecting 
the Adyoc Ocov just referred to, is that which Bertholdt has deduced from 
it; a deduction, which does equal violence to the context, and to the 
whole strain of reasoning, in our epistle. And where does John speak 
of Christ’s eternal priesthood, or of his offering made in heaven cca 
mvevparoc aiwviou? 

At the conclusion of the arguments which I have now reviewed, 
Bertholdt adds, ‘‘ With such real discrepancies between the epistle to 
the Hebrews and those of Paul, it is impossible that identity of author- 
ship should exist,” p. 2943. 

If, indeed, the discrepancies were made out as clearly as Bertholdt 
supposes them to be, there might be some difficulty in supposing identity 
of authorship; at least we could not suppose this, without at the same 
time conceding, that the writer was at variance in some measure with 
himself. But the conclusion which Bertholdt here draws, of course 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ, 167 


depends entirely on the fact, that all his allegations in respect to discre- 
sancies of style and sentiment are well supported. Whether this be so, 
hust now be left to the reader to judge. 

But there are other recent writers, who remain to be examined, that 
nave gone into the subject under discussion much more thoroughly and 
copiously than Bertholdt. I refer in particular to Dr. Schulz of Breslau, 
in the introduction to his Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
with brief notes, published A. D. 1818; and to Seyffarth, in his tract, 
De Epistole ad Heb. indole maxime peculiari. This last work especially 
has been spoken of with strong commendations by many critics; and 
Heinrichs, who in the first edition of his Commentary on the Hebrews 
defended the Pauline origin of our epistle, has, in the second edition of 
the same, declared himself a convert to the side of those who disclaim 
Paul as the author; attributing his conviction principally to the essay 
of Seyffarth just mentioned. As these works are the latest critical 
attempts to discuss at length the question under examination, and as 
they have manifestly had no small degree of influence upon the views of 
most of the continental critics of the present time, a particular examina- 
tion of them becomes necessary. 


§ 27. Objections of Schulz considered. 


That Dr. Schulz is a man entitled to high respect for acuteness and 
strength of intellectual power, is sufficiently manifest from his work cn 
the Sacrament, entitled Die Christl. Lehre vom heil. Abendmahle, nach 
dem Grundtexte des N. Testaments, A. D. 1824; a work which, from the 
talent it developes, and the discussion that it has excited, bids fair per- 
haps to bring this long-controverted subject to some close in the Lutheran 
church. His acquisitions of a philological nature are such, also, that 
great expectations were excited among not a few in Germany (if the 
Reviews are to be credited,) when it was announced that Dr. Schulz’s 
commentary on our epistle was about to appear. I make these remarks 
principally to show, that a particular attention to his work is not only 
allowable on the present occasion, but really necessary, if one would 
even seem to preserve the attitude of impartiality. 

This work was published a year before Bertholdt’s volume, which con- 
tains the views that I have just examined. But this writer informs us, 
that he had not seen the work of Schulz when his own went to the press ; 
consequently, this author, as far as we are now concerned, may be con- 
sidered as posterior to Bertholdt, 


168 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


Nearly the whole Introduction of Schulz is devoted to the considera- 
tion of the question, Who was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ? or 
rather, to showing that Paul was not the author, pp. 1—158. Previously 
to writing this, the author had been engaged in controversy on the sub- 
ject with his colleague Scheibel. The whole work bears the appearance 
of a heated, if not an exasperated state of mind; and while it discloses 
some vivid thoughts and pungent considerations, it also discloses some 
adventurous remarks and extravagant criticisms ; to which the sequel of 
this examination will bear testimony. 

The first fifty pages are devoted to the examination of Meyer’s Essay 
on the internal grounds for supposing that the epistle to the Hebrews 
was written by Paul.* In this are some remarks worthy of consider- 
ation, and which may serve to show that Meyer, in some cases, has 
pushed his comparisons too far. It is not to my purpose, however, to 
review this; as the subject has already been presented above, in §21. 
My only object is, to select from Schulz such arguments against the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, as have not already been examined, in 
order that the reader may obtain a full view of our subject. These argu- 
ments [ shall now subjom, with such remarks upon each, as the nature 
of the case may seem to require. 

(1.) ‘* It is incomprehensible, and indeed quite impossible, that, if 
Pau] wrote this epistle, early Christian antiquity should have been so 
doubtful about it, and the epistle itself have been received by the church 
so late, and with so much difficulty; and, after all, received only by 
some, and not at all by the generality of Christians. Such a fate did 
no other book of the New Testament meet with; not even the epistles 
which are addressed to individual persons,” p. 58. 

This objection borrows all its importance from assuming the fact, that 
our epistle was early and generally doubted in the churches, and at last 
but partially and doubtingly received. Whether Schulz had any good 
right to assume such a fact, must be left to the judgment of those who 
have read and weighed with impartiality the historical evidence already 
laid before them. It is unnecessary to retrace the ground here, which 
has once been passed over. The state of facts is far enough from show- 
ing, that all early Christians were doubtful about this epistle; nor can it 
be rendered probable, in any way, that doubts about it, at any period, 


* Printed in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Kritisches Journal der neuesten Theol. 


Literatur. 11. 225, seq. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 16%: 


had their origin in any ancient tradition that the epistle was not written 
by Paul. The doubts suggested are merely of a critical nature, or else 
they originated in doctrinal opinions, which seemed to be thwarted by 
our epistle. 

Nor is it correct, that other parts of the New Testament were not early 
doubted by some churches; nay, some of it was doubted by many. 
Witness the fact, that Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 111. 25, classes among the 
avrireyopevor, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Witness the 
fact, that the old Syriac version (Peshito) does not comprise either of 
these epistles, that of James excepted. Who, that is acquainted with 
the early state of criticism, and the history of our Canon, does not know 
that the ancient churches were not, for a long time, agreed in respect to 
all these epistles? Yet neither Schulz, nor any considerate critic, would 
decide that these books were spurious, because doubts had been raised 
respecting them. Are not the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John 
doubted, and called in question, by some learned critics, even at the pre- 
sent time? Shall they be given up, because they are called in question? 

(2.) ‘* The epistle to the Hebrews is altogether wntque; so much so, 
that no other writer of the New Testament could have produced it. 
Every one who can comprehend peculiarities, and is able to distinguish 
them, must acknowledge this to be so. Nothing more than this fact 
needs to be considered, in order to decide the matter,” p. 59. 

If the writer here means that the style is unique, then I must refer to 
the evidences of the contrary in the preceding pages. If he means that 
the selection of particular words is unique, this is to be hereafter con- 
sidered, when the selection, which Dr. Schulz has made, comes to be 
examined. If he means, that the matter is sui generis, I readily accede; 
but I demur to the allegation. Must Paul always write on one and the 
same subject to all the churches? Were their circumstances and wants 
all just the same? E. g. Is the first epistle to the Corinthians just like 
that to the Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, &c.; or is 
it a kind of dat Neyouevoy, or dxak oyLopevoy, compared with all the 
other epistles of Paul? Surely none of the others has much resemblance 
to it, in respect to the matters treated of. Does it then follow, that this 
epistle is spurious, because the subjects of it are suz generis? And is it 
any better evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to 
Paul, because the subjects of which it treats are peculiar? When we 
can prove that the wants of all churches are one and the same; and that 
an apostle who addresses them can write, or ought to write, only upon 


170 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


one subject, and in one way; then, and not till then, can this argument 
of Schulz have any weight in deciding the question before us, 

(3.) “* The Hebrews addressed in this epistle are of a peculiar class. 
They seem to have regarded themselves as a species of tlluminati, elect, 
and favourites of heaven; as animated by the Holy Spirit dwelling in 
them; they are represented as despising the world, as inclined to mys- 
tical and allegorical views, as aiming at the acquisition of unearthly 
objects, &c. The epistle wins much for its exegesis, by such a suppo- 
sition,” p. 67, seq. 

But supposing, now, all this to be correct, (which it would be difficult 
enough satisfactorily to prove,) how would it show that Paul did not 
write our epistle to them? And, surely, if the Hebrews had such views 
of themselves, what the apostle says, in chapter v. vi., and in some other 
places, was well adapted to humble them, and bring them to sober 
consideration. 

The proof, on which Dr. Schulz relies for the establishment of his 
assertion, is drawn from the use, by the writer of our epistle, of such 
terms as dytot, dwriodEevrec, TEAELOL, AyragopeEvor, dog Tou Oeov, &c. But 
these are terms applied to Christians, everywhere in the New Testament, 
and to the use of which nothing peculiar in our epistle can be justly 
attributed. 

(4.) ‘* The author of this epistle was a Judaizing Christian, who 
grants that Judaism is still to continue, yea, to have a perpetual duration. 
Not a trace of any thing is to be found, which intimates an equal parti- 
cipation in the privileges of the gospel by Jews and Gentiles,” pp. 74. 80. 

The first of these allegations is, so far as I know, altogether new. 
Nothing more need be said in respect to it, than to refer the reader to 
chapters vili—x. for most ample and satisfactory confutation. I had 
ever thought, before reading Dr. Schulz, that the writer of cur epistle 
was the last of men who could be justly accused of Judatzing. If his 
views do not agree with those of Paul in respect to this matter, | am 
unable to see how language could express them. 

In regard to the second allegation; it is sufficient to say, that the 
object of the writer did not lead him to treat of the subject to which it 
relates. Are there not other epistles of Paul which do not bring this 
subject to view? And must a writer always repeat the same topics? In 
what part of the first epistle to the Corinthians does Paul treat of the 
equal participation of Jews and Gentiles in the privileges of the gospel, 
and maintain the equal right of the latter; as he does in the epistles ta 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 17] 


the Romans and Galatians? And is it not enough to say, that he did 
‘not do this, because the occasion did not demand it ? 

(5.) ‘* But Christ, in our epistle, appears every where as the Son of 
God, as Apostle, and High Priest. Where is he so represented by 
Paul?” p. 81, seq. 

In regard to the appellation, Son of God, it is often enough given to 
Christ by Paul. In respect to a&mdorodoc and apxtepedce, he is not so 
called, indeed, by the apostle in his acknowledged epistles. The only 
reason why the writer of our epistle calls him so, is obviously one drawn 
from the nature of the comparison instituted between him and Moses, 
and between him and the Jewish high-priest. The nature of the com- 
position, and the object of the writer, rendered this unavoidable. In 
the acknowledged epistles of Paul, no such occasion is presented of 
using the appellations in question. See above, p. 163. 

(6.) ‘* The design of the writer is hortatory. The motives which he 
urges to continue stedfast in the Christian belief, and in the practice 
of Christian virtue, are drawn, (1.) From the great dignity of the 
Messiah; (2.) From the danger to which apostacy would expose them. 
This danger is augmented by the consideration, that the end of the 
world is near at hand, p. 86, seq. Storr, and others, who differ in 
their exegesis of passages which declare this, scarcely deserve contra- 
diction,” p. 91. 

The whole force of this rests, of course, upon the correctness of 
Dr. Schulz’s exegesis. From his views, in regard to such passages as 
x. 36, seq. and xii. 26, seq., I feel myself compelled entirely to dissent. 
But even if they are allowed, I see not how they can establish the fact, 
that Paul did not write our epistle, provided we stand upon the same 
ground with Dr. Schulz. He will not deny that Paul had exalted views 
of the dignity of the Saviour, and of the obligation of Christians to con- 
tinue stedfast in their acknowledgment of him. He believes that Paul, 
too, expected the end of the world to be actually near at hand. What 
is there, then, in the sentiments of our epistle, inconsistent with these 
views of Paul, as understood by him ? 

(7.) ‘Our author says nothing of Christ as judge of the world, but 
uniformly attributes judgment to God. Nor does he say a word of 
Hades, Gehenna, Satan, (excepting in i. 14, 15,) the resurrection 
of the dead, and generally of the closing scene of all things; of which 
matters Paul treats so copiously,” p. 95, seq. 

But surely the final close or destruction of all material things is 


172 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


sufficiently intimated, in i. 10, seq.; future punishment, in iv. 11, seq., 
vi. 4, seq., x. 26, seq., xii. 29. That the names Hades and Gehenna 
do not occur in our epistle, would be a singular argument to prove that 
Paul did not write it. Where, in all the acknowledged epistles of Paul, 
is either of these words to be found, excepting in one solitary quotation, 
in 1 Cor. xv. 55, which exhibits @éyc? As to Satan, this appellation 
does not indeed occur; but its equivalent diaodo¢e occurs, in ii. 14. 
The word Satan does not occur in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: are these epistles, therefore, 
spurious ? 

In regard to the resurrection of the dead, it is sufficient to refer 
to vi. 2, xi. 35, and what is implied in xu. 22, seq. 

That the writer of our epistle did not make frequent mention of these 
topics is easily accounted for, on the ground that he was more imme- 
diately occupied with other subjects. Are there not several of Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles which omit the same topics? But who under- 
takes to prove from this, that they are spurious ? 

(8.) “But not a word of Christ’s resurrection ; a theme on which 
Paul everywhere descants,”’ p. 97. 

What, then, does Heb. xiii. 20, mean? And what is implied in 
viii. 1; i.33 x. 123 xii. 2; ii.9; v.7-—9? And will Dr. Schulz point 
out the places, where Paul discusses this subject in his epistles to the 
Galatians, Colossians, in the second to the Thessalonians, in the first to 
Timothy, and some others ? 

(9.) “If Paul did not become wholly unlike himself, and change his 
very nature, he could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews ; which 
not only contains ideas foreign to his, but opposed to his,” p. 101. 

This is assertion, not argument. The only way to convince those 
who differ in opinion from us, is to offer arguments for what we avouch; 
not merely to assume or assert it to be true. 

(10.) “The grand point of Paul’s doctrines is, that Christ is the 
Saviour of all; that he died, or made atonement, for all. There is 
nothing of this in our epistle. Paul everywhere makes belief in Christ 
essential to salvation, and looks with contempt upon Jewish rites and 
ceremonies. But our author evidently handles Judaism with a sparing 
hand, and treats with honour the shell, from which he endeavours to 
extract the nut,” p. 102, seq. 

In regard to the first of these allegations, the reader is referred to 
Heb. ii. 9—11; v.9; ix. 15. 28; xi. 10; which afford hints suth- 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. {73 


ciently plain, that the writer did not regard the Messiah as the Saviour 
of the Jews only. But to treat, in our epistle, of the extent of his 
salvation among the Gentiles, plainly was not apposite to the particular 
design he had in view; and he might abstain from this topic, out of 
regard to the prejudices which those whom he addressed probably enter- 
tained (in common with most Jews) respecting it. Are there none of 
the acknowledged Pauline epistles, which do not treat of this subject ? 
And must Paul always bring it into view, whether to do so would be 
timely or untimely, apposite or inapposite to the object of his epistle ? 

In respect to the Judazzing spirit of the writer, I must refer once 
more to chap. vill.—x.; and what has already been said above, in 
examining the fourth objection. And with regard to belief in Christ 
as essential to salvation, the great object of all the epistle to the 
Hebrews is to urge it. Dispute with one who denies this, would surely 
be in vain. 

(11.) “‘ Paul no where represents Christ as a priest, nor his inter- 
cession as procuring favours for them,” p. 109, seq. 

In respect to this objection, I refer the reader to what has already 
been said, pp. 163 (h) and 165 (2.) 

(12.) ‘* Paul has no where drawn a parallel between Christ and 
Moses,” p. 111. 

But he did something very much like it, when he represented Moses 
and Christ as mediators, Gal. ii. 19, seq. And if he has not formally 
done it in any of his acknowledged epistles, it is enough to say, it was 
because the occasion did not call for it. 

(18.) ‘* Our author says nothing of the kingdom of God, or the king- 
dom of Satan, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; ideas predominant in 
Paul’s epistles,” p. 115. 

But is not a kingdom ascribed to Christ, in Heb. i. 8, 9; i. 10, seq., 
i. 7, seq-; x.13;:xu.2? And are not Christians represented as 
belonging to it, im xii. 28? And are the second epistle to the 
Corinthians and the epistle to the Philippians not genuine, because the 
first of these phrases is not in them? Is not the power or reign of Satan 
secognized, in Heb. ii. 14,15? And as to evayyéduov, see iv. 2; iv. 6. 
Apply, too, the same method of reasoning to Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles. EvayyediZw is a favourite word with this apostle; yet Philip- 
oians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 
Philemon, do not exhibit it. The word evayyéduor, too, is not found 
in the epistle to Titus. But is not the thing, which it indicates, 


174 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


found there? It is; and so it is in Hebrews, as frequently as the 
nature of the case required: e. g.i. 1; ii, 1.3; iv. 1, 2; v. 12; vi. 1, 
seq., x. 25; xii. 8, 9.17. 

(14.) “* How such expressions respecting the resurrection, as occur in 
1 Cor. xv. 5, seq. Rom. vi. 4; xi. 15. Phil. iii. 20, seq. Col. it. 13 
1 Thess. iv. 15, seq. 2 Thess. ii. 2 Tim. ii. 18, with Acts xxiv. 15; xxvi. 
6, seq., are to be reconciled with the views of the resurrection presented 
in our epistle, those who defend the genuineness of the epistle may be 
called on to account for,” p. 116. 

In some of these citations, I can find no reference at all to the resur- 
rection. In others, (e. g. Col. ii. 13,) there is simply a figurative or 
moral use of the term. As to the remainder, I can perceive no discre- 
pancy between them and Heb. vi. 2; xi. 35, and what is implied in 
xii. 22, seq. As Schulz has not pointed out in what the discrepancy 
consists, I am unable to apprehend it. 

(15.) “* But 1 Cor. xv. 24, seq. is at variance with Heb. i. 2. 8, seq. 
12, 13. vii. 24 seq. comp. v. 16:5 ix. 14, p: ERG.” 

Just as much as it is with Luke i. 33. Dan. ii. 44; vil. 14; Mic. iv. 7. 
John xii. 34. Isa. ix. 6. Ps. Ixxxix. 36. 2 Sam. vii. 16; and no more. 
What interpreter, who has carefully studied the idiom of the Scriptures, 
does not know that D?y?, m3, and eic rove aigvac roy aiwvwy, are 
applied to things to which a time of continuance is assigned, that is not 
liable to interruption by any adventitious circumstances, and which are 

to endure to the full period for which they were designed? So it is with 
the world, the mountains, the hills ; they are hip, gic Tove al@vac. So 
also, the mediutorial reign is not to be interrupted, “put to continue until 
all the designs of God in the redemption of men are completed. Then, 
of course, it must cease; as no more mediatorial offices are to be per- 
formed. 

And why, too, should Dr. Schulz suggest such a consideration, as a 
proof that Paul did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, when he makes 
no difficulty at all in suggesting, that the sacred writers are not unfre- 
quently at variance with themselves? To allege the fact of variance, 
then, either with each other or with themselves, is no valid argument, on 
the ground upon which he stands. He is not, here, consistent with him- 
self. And, besides, has not Paul himself recognised the perpetuity of 
Christ’s dominion, in his acknowledged epistles? See Rom. ix. 5. 

(16.) “ The writer of our epistle, entangled with types and allegories, 
knows not how to say any thing respecting Christianity, except what 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 175 


he finds an analogy for in Judaism; so that his work is made up of 
parallels between the old and new dispensation, spun out to an excessive 
length...... The limited circle in which this writer moves, his evidew 
deficiency in activity of mind, and in unfolding his own views, are alto- 
gether unlike the active, creative mind of Paul, that master-spirit, who 
moves with such perfect freedom, and controls at pleasure all his own 
views, without any subjection to the influence of others, or even being at 
all affected by any thing of Jewish origin; all of which was entirely at 
his command...... Whoever should attribute this singular production to 
Paul, would show that he was little acquainted with him,” p. 119. 

Yet, in p. 124, Dr. Schulz says, ‘‘ One finds in the unknown author 
[of our epistle,] more orderly deduction, more learned accuracy, and, 
for the most part, a well-arranged, gradual ascent, from the point where 
he starts, which he usually establishes by quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment, to the sublime region, to which, as true, eternal, and heavenly, he 
directs every thing, and where he ends every thing; finally, more luxu- 
rious, oratorical qualities, than in Paul.” 

How this consists with the preceding representation, the writer of both 
may well be required to show. The reader, I am sure, must find diffi- 
culty enough to make them harmonize. But, at any rate, the accusa- 
tion that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is not master of his 
own subject and own thoughts, is, so far as I know, new; and one which 
(as I shall confidently believe, until I see more evidence to the contrary ,) 
it is unnecessary to answer. 

(17.) “ Heb. ii. 1, 2, proves that Paul could not have been the writer 
of our epistle ; for he did’ not receive his gospel from others, but was 
mmediately taught it by Christ himself, Gal. i. 11, 12; v. 15—19;” 
p. 125, seq. 

On the subject of this objection, the reader is referred to p. 33 (c). 
I add here only, that if the use of the first person plural by the writer, 
necessarily makes him one, in all respects, with those whom he is address- 
ing, then the author of our epistle did himself need the admonitions 
which he has so powerfully and feelingly addressed to others: see ii. 1. 3; 
it, 6; iv. 1, 2. 11. 13. 16; vi. 1—3. 18.19; x. 22—25, 26. 39; xi. 40; 
xu. 1.9, 10. 28; xii. 10.13.15. Nay, he must have included himself 
among those who were shaken in their Christian belief, and who were in 
imminent hazard of final apostacy. 

On the other hand; nothing can be plainer, than that he uses we or ye 
indiiferently, for the persons whom he addresses; e. g. we, in xii. 1, 2; 


176 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


ye, in xil. 3—8; we, in xii. 9,10; ye, in xii. l14d—25; we, in xii. 25— 
28; and often in the same manner elsewhere, the address being still most 
manifestly made to the very same persons. He often employs, also, the 
first person plural (j)e7c,) to designate merely himself; e. g. in Heb. 
u. 5; vi. 9. 11; xiii. 18. This, in like manner, he interchanges with the 
first person singular: e. g. xili. 18; comp, xili. 19. 22, 23. 

How can it be, now, that Dr. Schulz should so strenuously urge the 
argument drawn from the use of the first person plural, to show that the 
writer of our epistle received his knowledge of the gospel from apostles 
and disciples, and of course that he could not be Paul? Yet he not 
only urges it at length, pp. 125—130, but declares, that ‘ it affords a 
decisive proof, that the apostle Paul could not have written the epistle 
in question,” p. 126. Especially, how could he urge such an argument, 
when the same use of the first person plural runs through all the Pauline 
epistles: e. g. fyeic and éyw for the writer himself, Gal. i. 8 ; comp. i. 9— 
24; Gal. ii. 5; comp. ii. L—4, and il. 6,7. So tpete and dpeic for the 
persons addressed, Gal, iti. 1—1]2; ii. 13—25; ili. 26—29; iv. 6—20; 
iv. 26—31, et alibi. Is it possible, then, to attribute any weight to such 
an argument as that in question ? 

(18.) “* The manner of citing or appealing to the Old Testament, by 
Paul and by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, is very different. 
Paul appeals to it as a written record; but the writer of our epistle 
every where cites it as the immediate word of God, or of the Holy Ghost. 
Paul’s formulas of citation are, yéypatrar, ka0we yéyparT7a, i ypagy 
héyet, Eypagn, Kara TO yeypappeévoy, 6 Noyoc yeypappevoc, Mwiane ypape— 
Néyet, O vouoc héyer, Ev Mwicéwe vopw yéyparra, Aafid Néyer, ‘Hoaiac 
héyer—xpader, év ro ‘Qoné déyer, and cara 70 eionpevoy; which are not 
used in a single instance, in the epistle to the Hebrews. Instead of these 
formulas, the author uses Aéyer—paprvpe—ro rveipa TO dywv, Eyer 
6 Oedc; or the abridgments of these formulas, viz. Neyer, EipnKe, prapriper, 
@not. Does not such a diversity necessarily imply diversity of author- 
ship 2?” p. 120, seq. 

To this representation of Dr. Schulz, Seyffarth has not only assented, 
but, in his Essay on the Peculiarities of the Epistle to the Hebrews,* 
he has placed the modes of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures at the head 
of these peculiarities, so far as the style of the author is concerned ; 
‘referenda huc est, pre ceteris omnibus, loca Vet. Test. laudandi 
singularis ratio.” Dr. Schulz, moreover, says, “that plainly Paul 


* De epistole ad Heb. indole, §§ 58—60. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 177 


makes less frequent use, in general, of the Old Testament Scriptures, 
than is made of them in the epistle to the Hebrews ;” an objection which 
has been frequently alleged by others. 

The result of an attentive and repeated examination of our epistle, and 
of all the acknowledged Pauline epistles, in respect to the mode and _fre- 
quency of quotation, has led me to conclusions somewhat different from 
those which Schulz and Seyffarth have adopted. I shall present them, 
with my reasons for adopting them. 

(a) The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is by no means uniform 
in his mode of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. In twenty-one cases, 
MMs tos! Ac Oist tages Moles lilies lve 3 3s Oy/Ous das svi evi s 
Me OM LVill S 4x, 20'S eb sim, Six. Os we Ss RABOs MNO eS 
he has used eizey, eipyne, Neyer, A€Eywy, pariper, pyol, with a nominative 
never expressed, except in three instances, viz. Heb. iil. 7; vi. 14, by 
implication, and x. 15. In fourteen of these cases, we may gather from 
the context, that Oedc, or Kvptoc, is the probable nominative, i.e. the 
one which the writer meant his readers should supply. our of the cases 
have Xpisdc, or "Inootc, for a nominative, viz. il. 13; x. 5; x. 8; x. 9, 
which is implied ; two of them have 70 rvevpa ro dywy expressed, viz. 
iii. 7; x. 15; and one only has Oedc expressed, and that because it was 
unavoidable, vi. 14. 

In five cases more, which are introduced merely with wad, cat, or Ce, 
viz. i. 5; 1.8; 1.10; 1.13; x. 30, but stand connected with a pre- 
ceding quotation, the grammatical connexion requires us to supply ize, 
héywr, Aéyer, &C., 1. €. Kupioc or Oedc Eyer, ceive, &C. In two cases of 
the like nature, viz. i. 13; il. 14, "Incotc- or Xpisdce is the implied 
nominative. In the whole, there are twenty-five instances of quotation 
in which the nominative is not expressed, in nineteen cases of which it 
probably is @eoc, and Xpisdc in the other stz. There are two cases 
only, in which the nominative 70 rvetpa 7d yoy is expressed; and one 
only where @edc is actually inserted. 

If one might trust to the representations of Dr. Schulz and Seyffarth, 
he must, of course, be led to believe, that these are all the kinds of 
quotation which our epistle presents. This, however, is not the case. 
In ii. 6, we have duepapriparo cé mov ric, viz. Aafsid; in iii. 15, év TO 
AéyeoOar, when it zs said, (like W2NIW in the Mishna;) in iv. 4, cipyee 
yap mov, sc. 4 ypad? plainly, which formula is repeated by waXuy in iv. 5; 
in iv. 7, we find év Aafid Aéywr, saying by David; in ix. 20, Mwiaijc— 

N 


178 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


Aéywr ; in xi. 18, EXadHOn, (like “WAN ; 3) In xil. 5, wapakdjoewe ; in xii. 
20, 70 dcaseAAOuevoy; in xii. 21, Muiioge eime; in xii. 27, 7d de; in 
xiii. 6, Sse hyde A€yew, so that we may say. Besides this, we have, 
in lil. 5; x. 37; and xi. 21, quotations without any direct sign or notice 
of appeal; not to mention several references or partial quotations which 
might easily be subjoined. In the whole, there are fifteen instances 
of quotation, (i. e. about three-eighths of all the quotations,) where the 
appeal is different from that which Schulz and Seyffarth attribute to our 
author, and on which they have built their argument against the Pauline 
origin of our epistle. 

(b) There is a similar variety of appeal in the acknowledged Pauline 
epistles. E. g. xuOwe yéypanra, yéypamrae yap, or év vou yéypanrat, 
are used in Romans sixteen times: viz. 1.17; il. 24; iii. 4; iii. 10; 
ives 73) Vall. Ooi Le stix..gosixe 15 pox Sip) 40265 xs 1S sees 
xv. 33 xv.9; xv.2]. In 1 Corinthians, nine times: viz. i. 19; i. 31; 
ii, 93,411. 19); ix. 95: x. 75 xiv. 21; xv.45; xv.54) cin 2iCorinthians; 
three times: viz. iv. 13; villi. 15; ix. 9. In Galatians, four times: viz. 
ili. 10; iii. 13; iv. 22; iv. 27. Inall, thirty-two. ‘H ypagy déyer is 
used eight times: viz. Rom. iv. 3; ix.17; x. 11; xix. 2; probably 
Rom. xv. 10; xv. 11. 1 Cor. vi. 16. Gal. iv. 30. ‘Hoatac dNéye, four 
times : viz. Rom. x. 16; x. 20; x. 21; xv. 12. ‘Hoatac xpaZe, Rom. ix. 
27 ; “Hoatac zpoeionxe, 1x. 29; Mwioijc déyer, X. 19; Mwioije yeape, x. 5; 
AaGid déyet, iv. 16; xi. 9; 6 vdpoc édeye, Vil. 73 ¥) éx wis€we OuKarocvyn rEyet, 
x. 6; ri Neyer, [sc. fj Ex tisewe ducatoovyn,1 x. 9; Xpnparropoc héye, x1. 4. 

There are ten cases of quotation without any formula of appeal; viz. 
Rom. ix. 7; x. 13; x. 18; xi.34; xu. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 26; xv. 
27; Gal. ili. 11; ili. 12; not to mention many cases where partial 
reference is made, in both the phraseology and thought of the apostle, 
to passages in the Old Testament. 

Where an appeal is expressly made to the Old Testament by Paul, in 
his acknowledged epistles, there is, then, a small majority of cases 
in which caO&e¢ yéyparra, or its equivalents, are used, if we take the 
whole together. But, in the epistle to the Romans, the other methods 
of quotation predominate, The ground of such appeals as Aafid, ‘Hoatac, 
Mwoiioijc—ré yer, will be the subject of remark by and by. 

(c) The assertion of Schulz, that Paul no where uses the formula of 
appeal Gedc, Kiproc—éyer, comes next to be examined ; for on this have 
he and Seyffarth grounded the conclusion, that the same writer could 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 179 


not have been the author of the Pauline epistles and of the epistle to the 
Hebrews. Assertions made at random, on this subject, cannot decide it 
Let the appeal be made to facts. 

Rom. ix. 12, €6679y air, viz. to Rebecca. But by whom was it said 
By Jehovah, Gen. xxv. 23. It is the Adyoce Kupiov or Ozov, then, to 
which appeal is necessarily made here. Rom. ix. 15, 79 Mwiioy déyer, 
[sc. 6 Kuptog vel 6 Oedc.] Rom. ix. 25, éy rp ‘Qoné Eyer, [sc. 6 Ocdc,] 
just the same as in Heb. iv. 7, éy Aafid Néywy; i.e. saying by Hosea, 
saying by David. 

In 2 Cor. vi. 2, Aéyee yap [sc. 6 Kuptoc;] vi. 16, cixev 6 Ocdc; vi. 17, 
A€yet Kupwog; vi. 18, A€yer Kipwoc wavroxpdrwp; Gal. iii. 16, ob dEvet, 
[sc. 6 Oedc. | 

So much for the assertion, that Paul has never used the formula of 
appeal, 6 Oede Eyer, Or Agyee Kipeoc. Dr. Schulz will surely not object, 
that the nominative Kipuoc or Ode is not expressed in all these cases; 
for it never is so, in the epistle to the Hebrews, with the exception of 
only one instance, viz. Heb. vi. 14. But other resemblances remain to 
be pointed out. 

In Rom. xiii. 9, 70 yap is prefixed to a quotation; and again, éy ra, 
Rom. xii. 9. In the same way is 70 dé used, Heb. xii. 27. In Rom. 
iv. 18, we find the perfect participle used, cava 70 eipnuévoy ; in Heb. xii. 
20, ro dcacreA\Nduevov. In Rom. ix. 12, &640n; Heb. xi. 18, édadiOn, 
and (equivalent to this) év ro NéyeoOar, il. 15. 

In regard to the assertion of Schulz and Seyffarth, ‘“ that Oedc, Xpuaroc, 
or rvevpa &ywov, is always the nominative to Aéye, eize, &c., in the 
epistle to the Hebrews,” the following formulas may be consulted ; viz. 
Heb. il. 6, dtesapriparo dé mov ric, [sc. Aafid]; iv. 4, &pnxe yap [sc. 
4 yead)]; which is repeated by necessary implication, in iv. 5; ix. 20, 
Muiojic....--Aéywr Xil. 21, Mwiioie cize, (either a quotation of a sacred 
traditional saying, or a reference to the Scriptures ad sensum:) all 
cases of the same nature as those which occur in Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles. 

Besides these, we have, in xii. 5, a quotation referred to by calling it 
rapaxAnorc, (comp. Rom. xi. 4, xpnparispoc déyer;) and in xiii. 6, we 
are pointed to a text of Scripture by the expression, Ware hyde Aéyerv. 
There are several instances, also, of quotation without any formula o 
appeal; just as in Paul’s acknowledged epistles. 

(d) There is as great a difference between Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles, in regard to the formulas and the frequency of quotation from 

N2 


180 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


the Old Testament, as there is between the epistle to the Hebrews and 
some of Paul’s acknowledged epistles; nay, even a greater difference. 
E. g. in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the only formula of quotation 
is the verb yéypamrat, viz. 1 Cor. 1.19; 1.31; 11. 9; iil, 19; iil. 20; ix. 9; 
x. 7; xiv. 21; xv. 24; one case only excepted, vi. 16. Four times, quo- 
tation is made without any formula, viz. | Cor. ii. 16; x. 26; xv. 27; 
xy. 32. Now, in the epistle to the Romans, out of forty-eight quotations, 
only sixteen are introduced with the same formula; the others exhibiting 
all the variety above described. On the other hand, the second epistle 
to the Corinthians is equally divided between the formulas, we yéypar7at, 
and déyen, elze [Sc. 6 Ocdc or Kipwoc]; there being three of each kind, 
Viz. we yéypanrat, 2 Cor. iv 13; vill. 15; ix. 9; déyer, cize [6 Ocdc], vi. 2; 
vi. 16; vi. 17. It has also two quotations without any formula, ix. 7; 
xill. 1, The epistle to the Galatians has four formulas with yéyparrac, 
Gal. iii. 10; ii. 13; iv. 22; iv. 27; one with ede implied, iii. 16; and 
two without any formula, iii. 11; mi. 12. 

In all the other Pauline epistles, to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- 
sians, Thessalonians, to Timothy and Titus, there are not more than four 
or five quotations of Scripture to be found. 

Suppose now, that we take the epistle to the Romans, (one of the most 
undoubted of all Paul’s epistles,) as the model of this writer’s quotations, 
Then the argument is conclusive, (on the ground which Schulz and Sey- 
ffarth have taken against the genuineness of all his other acknowledged 
epistles, unless it be the second to the Corinthians, and that to the Gala- 
tians. Above all, what shall we say of the great majority of his epistles, 
which never quote the Old Testament at all? Can it be, that the same 
man wrote these, who has directly appealed no less than forty-eight 
times to the Old Testament, in the epistle to the Romans, not to mention 
many other implicit references? And can it be, when his formulas of 
reference are so diverse, as they are between this epistle and the first to 
the Corinthians, that the same person was the author of both? It is easy 
now to perceive, that if arguments can be built on such circumstances as 
these, then the genuineness of the greater portion of the Pauline epistles 
- must of course be denied. Is Dr. Schulz prepared for such a con- 
clusion ? 

(e) A word as to the greater frequency of quotations, in the epistle 
to the Hebrews. Let us compare it with that to the Romans, which it 
most of all resembles, in respect to discussion and method of argument. 
In the epistle to the Romans, there are, at least, forty-eight quotations ; 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 181 


in that to the Hebrews, thirty-four. More may be made ia each, if we 
reckon all the cases of like phraseology or resemblances to the Old Testa- 
ment, in the turn of thought, which may be found in both. Now, the 
proportion of the epistle to the Romans to that of the Hebrews, in regard 
to length, is as fourteen to ten; the number of quotations as forty-eight 
to thirty-four; which would average nearly three and a half to a page, 
in each epistle ; the proportion being nearly the same in both, but the 
excess on the side of the epistle to the Romans. So much for the 
assertion, that the frequency of quotation in our epistle proves that Paul 
was not the author of it. If there be any weight in such an argument, 
it lies equally against the genuinenees of the epistle to the Romans, 
compared with Paul’s other epistles, which have no quotations at all. 

(f) On the whole, then, the objection, drawn either from the method 
or the frequency of quotation, (singularis ratio pre ceteris omnibus of 
our epistle, as Seyffarth calls it,) vanishes away upon close examination ; 
or if adhered to, must disprove the genuineness of a major part of the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul. That Paul, in our epistle, should have 
more frequently than elsewhere used déyet, citer, elpnxe, is altogether 
consonant with what we may suppose him to have done, when addressing 
the Hebrews. The usual and almost the only mode of quoting, prevalent 
among the Jews, in ancient times, appears to have been such: at least if 
we may judge of it as it appears in the Mishna, where WIN Vana, at is 
said, as it is said, which is said, is almost the only formula i in use. 
There is an obvious reason for this. Every Jew, being conversant with 
the Old Testament Scriptures, would of course know what was the kind 
and weight of the appeal, made by Aéyer, eize, (VIN) ; i. e. he would at 
once refer it to divine testimony. Hence, this abridged and natural 
mode of quotation prevails in our epistle. But in writing to churches 
made up of both Jews and Gentiles, the latter of whom were of course 
less familiar with the Old Testament, and knew less where to look for 
passages quoted, it was more natural for the apostle, (as he has done in 
the epistle to the Romans,) to say Mwiajje Néyet, "Eoatac Aéyer, &C., SO 
that the reference might be more definite. This is a sufficient reason to 
account for any differences in the formula of quotation, between our 
epistle and the other epistles of Paul. The difference itself has, however, 
as we have seen, been greatly over-rated. Nothing important, most 
plainly, can be made of it by higher eriticism, in performing its office 
upon our epistle. What can be more improbable, too, than that such a 
master-spirit as Paul should cast all his letters in the same mould; 


182 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


always use the same round of expression; mechanically apply the same 
‘ormulas of quotation; and for ever repeat the same sentiments in the 
same language? And because he has not done so, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews, must it be wrested from him, by criticism which exacts such 
uniformity in a writer? Where is the writer of epistles, ancient or 
modern, who possessed any talents and free command of language, 
whose letters can be judged of by such a critical test as this ? 

(19.) «* The appellations given to the Saviour, in Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles and in the epistle to the Hebrews, are so diverse. as to afford strong 
evidence that both did not originate from the same person. E. g. in the 
Pauline epistles, these appellations are either, 6 ktptoc fav "Incovc Xproroe, 
"Incove Xptorde 6 Kbptog Hyudy, Xprorde “Iqaove 6 Kipwog ipwy, OF 6 Kbpwoc 
"Iyootc Xpeordc. In innumerable passages is Christ referred to by these 
appellations; which are so characteristic of Paul’s writings, that they 
are to be regarded as nearly the constant established formulas, by which 
he adverts to the Saviour. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
the writer uses most commonly vidc rod Oeod or 6 vidc ; he also employs, 
at times, 6 Kdptoc or 6 Incotg simply. Twice only has he connected 
"Incovc Xpiordc. This must appear striking to every unprejudiced person, 
and of importance,” p. 139, seq. 

Striking, indeed, the argument may appear, in the form stated by 
Schulz; but an investigation, through the medium of a Concordance, 
will present a very different result from that which he has presented. 

(a) In regard to vidg rod Oeod or 6 vide being the most frequent 
appellation given to Christ by the writer of our epistle, the facts stand 
thus. Omitting dubious references, and all the names of Christ that are 
appellatives suggested merely by the occasion, (suchas améaroNoc, doyte- 
peve, apynyoe owrnpiac—rijc TloTEwc, pEcirnc, owrip, and KAnpdvopoc,) 
the writer refers to the Messiah, by some one of his usual titles, in thirty- 
two places; in four of which only he calls him vide rod Oeod, viz. Heb. 
iv. 14; vi. 6; vii. 3; x. 29. In eight other places he calls him vide; viz. 
i. 1, 5 bis, 8; in. 6; v. 5. 8; vii. 28. In the Pauline epistles, these desig- 
nations are used seventeen times: viz. Rom. i. 3, 4. 9; v.10; viii. 3.29.32. 
1 Cor. i. 9; xv. 28. 2 Cor. i. 19. Gal. i. 16; ii, 20; iv. 4. 6. Eph. iv. 13. 
Col. i. 13. 1 Thess. i. 10. 

(b) Képog is so far from being limited to the epistle to the Hebrews, 
in its application to Christ, that, if I have counted rightly, it is found in 
the acknowledged Pauline epistles, applied in the same way, one hundred 
and forty-seven times, and is the most frequent appellation of any except 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 183 


Xptoroc. The cases where kvpio¢ stands united with "Inoote, "Incote 
Xptordc, &c. are exempted from this enumeration. 

On the other hand, the writer of our epistle is so far from making a 
frequent use of this designation, that he has employed it singly in two 
places only, or at most three, viz. li. 3; vil. 14; probably xii. 14. 

That Schulz should make a representation so singularly incorrect, 
respecting the appellation xvpwc, can be accounted for in no other way, 
than by supposing that he never examined his Concordance, for the sake 
of investigating the question respecting the use of it. 

But further; in the epistle to the Romans, xvpoe is applied to Christ 
not more than seventeen times; some may think still less, in as much as 
the exegesis, in a few of the cases, may be doubtful. In the first epistle 
to the Corinthians, however, (which is about the same length,) the same 
appellation is given to Christ forty-five times; while, in the epistle to 
‘Titus it does not occur at all. Further, Inaote Xo.ordc, Or Xovordc 
"Inoovc, is used, in the epistle to the Romans, as connected with kvpro¢ 
only fourteen times; in | Corinthians, only eleven. “Inoove Kvpioe is 
used in Romans twice; in 1 Corinthians, thrice. Kupog Xptordc only in 
Rom. xvi. 18. Such a variety of usage in these different epistles, must, 
if Schulz’s method of arguing is correct, prove that Paul could not have 
written them all. 

(c) *Incove, without being connected with the other usual appellations 
of Christ, is employed in our epistle seven times: viz. ii. 9; vi. 20; 
vii. 22; x. 19; xii. 2.24; xiii. 12. In the Pauline epistles, sixteen times; 
viz. Rom. iii. 26; viii. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 5; iv. 10 bis; iv. 11 bis. 
iv. 14. xi. 4. Eph. iv. 21. Phil. 11. 10. 1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 15; iv. 14 bis. 
In the epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 
2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, it is not found at all. 

(d) Xpeordc is used, in like manner, by our author, six times, viz. ii. 6. 
14; v. 5; vi. 1; ix. 11. 14, 24. 28; xi. 26; in the Pauline epistles one 
hundred and ninety-eight, if I have rightly counted. 

(e) "Inootc Xprordc, instead of being used only twice, as Schulz avers, is 
used three times; Heb. x. 10; xiil. 8. 21, omitting iii. 1, where it stands 
also in the textus receptus. 

(f) In xiii. 20, Kupuy I. Xpeoréy is used by the writer, just as Paul 
employs it. 

(g) Those designations of Christ in the Pauline epistles, which Schulz 
has mentioned as the usual and only appellations of him by Paul, do not 
collectively amount to more than sixty-eight, if we take the number as 


184 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


stated by himself (who, however, as is usual with him, has in haste over 
looked some instances ;) while, in the same epistles, other appellations 
which he does not acknowledge, are used with far greater frequency ; 
e.g. kptoc isused one hundred and forty-seven times, and Xproroc, one hun- 
dred and ninety-eight ; the former being an appellation which this writer 
holds out as characteristic of our epistle to the Hebrews, and neglecta~ 
by Paul. Truly this matter is strzking (if I may use Dr. Schulz’s owr 
language ;) and if the epistle to the Hebrews can be wrested from Pauli 
only by arguments such as this, those who ascribe it to this apostle have 
not much reason for apprehension, in regard to the safety of their cause. 

Even if the facts stated by Schulz were correct, it would not follow 
that Paul could not be the author of our epistle. The predominant 
appellation of the Saviour in the Pauline epistles is simply Xpusrde; as 
we have just seen. Yet, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, this 
appellation, simply used, occurs but once, (iil. 5.) and in both the epis- 
tles to Timothy, and in that to Titus, it does not once occur. Does it 
follow from this, then, that Paul did not write these epistles? If not, 
then, supposing the facts alleged by Schulz to be correct, no critical 
argument could be safely built upon them. But they are so far from 
being correct, that one finds it difficult to account for it, how any man, 
who expected others to examine for themselves, and not to receive what 
he says as authoritative, should have thrown out before the public such 
affirmations as every tyro, with a Greek Concordance in his hand, would 
be able to disprove. Truly Professor Schulz must not blame his readers, 
if they are slow and cautious about admitting his allegations, on subjects 
where accuracy, and diligence, and patience are necessary, in order to 
produce correct results. 

Seyffarth has brought forward the same argument, but with a some- 
what different statement of facts; yet full of inaccuracies and errors. 
He concludes, as the sum of the whole, ‘‘ that the writer of the epistle to 
the Hebrews has given to the Saviour appellations, which are indicative 
of less reverence than those which Paul bestows upon him,” and that 
<< there is a great difference between the usage of Paul, in this respect, 
and that of our epistle,” p. 90. 

On the whole, nothing can be plainer, than that the usage in our 
epistle, with respect to the appellations in question, differs no more from 
the usual Pauline one, than the usage of several of his acknowledged 
epistles differs from that of others belonging to him. Consequently, no 


weight can be attached to this objection. 


§ 27 OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 185 


(20.) ‘* The writer of our epistle has made use of a great many words 
and phrases, in order to express ideas which Paul expresses, (either 
always or usually,) by aifferent words or phrases,” p. 138, seq. 

This objection is drawn out at great length, and requires a minuteness 
of consideration and philological exhibition which is truly appalling. 
But having commenced the work, it must not be left unfinished. The 
importance of the subject under discussion, is the apology on which I 
must rely for justification, as to the length and minuteness of the exa- 
mination. General assertions may satisfy those who think in generals, 
and reason in generals ; but the true critic demands facts, and of course 
detail, in an investigation dependent on facts. 

It will shorten our work, however, and be of no small importance with 
respect to the satisfaction which the reader’s mind is to experience, if 
some acknowledged, or at least just, principles of reasoning in regard to 
such a topic, can be premised, before we enter upon particulars. 

The following principles seem to be such, as, it may reasonably be 
expected, will be assented to by all sober and judicious critics; in par- 
ticular, by all who have not a special end to accomplish by the denial of 
them. 

(a) The same writer, if a man of knowledge and talents, (both of 
which will be conceded to Paul,) does not, in an extensive corre- 
spondence either on matters of business or sentiment, always express 
the same ideas by the same words or phrases ; much less, always repeat 
the same ideas, whatever may be the nature of the subject which the 
occasion demands. I appeal to all the volumes of letters extant, in 
proof of this. 

(b) The same writer, at different periods of life, in different cireum- 
stances and states of mind and feeling, exhibits a variety of style in his 
epistles ; especially where the subjects themselves are very diverse. The 
appeal in proof of this, I make to well-known facts, and to every one’s 
own experience, who has been long accustomed to write letters on a 
variety of grave and important topics. In particular will the case be as 
now represented, if a writer’s lot, at one period of his life, be cast among 
men and authors, who differ in style and modes of thinking and expres- 
sion, from those with whom he has, at another time, been associated. 

(c) It follows, then, that differences in the choice of expression, in 
two epistles, in order to convey the same idea, (above all, when this 
stands in connexion with diverse subjects,) is no good proof that the 
same person did not, or could not, write both. Indeed, no man who is 


186 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


not a writer of the most sterile genius, and of a mind the most mecha- 

nical, nay, absolutely insusceptible of excitement or of improvement, will 

always limit himself to the same round of expression. While there will 

be occasional words and expressions, which will mark some charac- 

teristics appropriate to a writer of knowledge and talents, yet in the 

great body of them, there will not be a mechanical sameness either of 

thought or of expression; but every letter will take its colouring, more © 
or less, from the occasion and the state of mind which prompted it. 

(d) If any person refuses to accede to principles so plain and rea- 
sonable as these, it would be easy to show him, (as will be seen here- 
after,) that any one of Paul’s acknowledged epistles may be proved to be 
spurious, on a different ground, just as easily as the epistle to the 
Hebrews. Schulz and Seyffarth have undertaken to prove, that Paul 
did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, because it contains many 
words, either not employed by Paul, or not employed by him in the 
same sense; and also some favourite expressions, not found in his 
acknowledged epistles. At first view, the number of such words or 
expressions, as exhibited by them, seems very great; nay, quite appal- 
ling, before examination. Most critics of the present day seem to have 
been influenced principally by this consideration, in giving up the 
Pauline origin of our epistle. But a widely-extended examination of 
this subject has ended in producing different impressions upon my own 
mind. In am fully persuaded, now, that there is scarcely any one of 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles, which cannot be proved to be spurious, if 
the grounds of argument assumed by the above-named writers is tenable. 
I will pledge myself (I do not say it at a venture) to produce as many 
peculiarities, as many dag Aeyopeva or &ral Aoyfopeva, for example, in 
the epistle to the Romans, in the first to the Corinthians, or in the 
second to the Corinthians, (in proportion to the length of these epistles, 
and compared with the other acknowledged epistles of Paul,) as there 
are in the epistle to the Hebrews. If this can be done, then is the argu- 
ment equally good against either of these epistles, which are among the 
most undoubted of all the writings of Paul. The proof of this | shall 
by and by produce, by laying before the reader the result of the prin- 
ciples which I have ventured to call in question, by applying them to 
the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. 

(e) Dr. Schulz himself, who has laboured with so much zeal and con- 
fidence to fix upon our epistle the charge of peculiarities in style, expres- 
sion, and favourite phrases, has, in another part of his work, and before 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 187 


his mind became heated with this subject, made the following remarks, 
which are well worthy of attention. 

‘« We give up words, and phrases, and thoughts, [in the epistle to the 
Hebrews,] which occur but seldom in the books of the New Testament, 
or in Paul’s epistles. We shall not insist upon the ara Neydpeva or the 
amaé NoyZéueva; for why must a writer of numerous works necessarily 
repeat, oftentimes, his ideas in general, or his favourite phrases? Why 
must he often do this in al/ his works, and not use some of them merely 
in particular passages? Every writer will do the latter, and must do it, 
when, either by accident or by design, he falls only once upon some 
particular idea. But in regard to a writer, whose whole works we do 
not possess, (perhaps only a small part of them,) how can we pronounce 
sentence upon many phrases and thoughts, or deduce any argument at 
all from them? And such is the case before us. What now appears, 
.n the letters of Paul still extant, to be drag cipnuévoy, he may have 
said and written numberless times, in works now lost.” p. 52. 

He then proceeds very justly to ask, ‘‘ whether it is the design of any 
New Testament writer, in any one particular book, to represent the 
whole scheme of Christian doctrine complete in all its parts? And if 
not, whether that, which in one book differs from the contents of 
another, is to be considered as departure or contradiction, in respect to 
that other?” And then he adds, < It is quite surprising, and deserving 
of reprobation, that any one should call in question expressions against 
which no objections can be made, when they are consonant with the 
usus loquendi, and are genuine Greek; and also, that any one should 
produce them as grounds of suspicion against a book, because they do 
not occur in other compositions of a similar nature. In the epistle to 
the Hebrews, there are many of this kind.” p. 53. 

These remarks are no less just than striking. I freely give to them 
my entire and hearty approbation; and I am willing, with such prin- 
ciples in view, to join issue with the author, as to his list of words and 
phrases which he brings forward, in his attack upon our epistle. Nine 
parts in ten of all that he has advanced, of this nature, would be 
excluded from the argument by his own sentence. 

To reduce the view, which I must now give of the words and phrases 
adduced by Schulz, to as short a compass as will be consistent with my 
design, I shall first remark on those words which require to be separately 
discussed ; and then I shall class together those to which some general 
principle will apply in common. I follow mostly the order of Schulz, 


188 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


step by step, merely because this is more convenient for those who mav 
wish to compare what is here written with the remarks of this author. 


I. Words and phrases, instead of which Paul employs other and different ones. 


(1.) “ Ev\aBera, Heb. v. 7, xi. 28, is used in the sense of piety, 
devotedness to God; it is equivalent to evoéBeca as employed by Paul, 
1 Tim. ii. 2. i. 16, &c. Neither of these writers employs the word used © 
by the other.” p. 141. 

The sense of evAdHera, in Heb. v. 7, it is altogether probable, is fear, 
which is the classical sense of the word ; and this is probably the sense, 
too, in Heb. xii. 28, as its adjunct aidove seems to indicate. Schulz’s 
objection is founded on an exegesis far from being certain, and indeed 
quite improbable. But if we allow his interpretation to be true, the 
objection amounts only to this, that Paul, at one time, has employed 
evoéPeva (the proper Greek word) in order to express the idea of piety ; 
and at another time, in writing to the Hebrews, he has used sivAdBea, 
(corresponding to the Heb. Ny reverence, piety,) to express the same 
idea. What could be more natural for a Hebrew, than to do this? 

(2.) ‘* Our author uses duaravrdc; Paul, ravrore, and very frequently 
repeats it.” p. 141. 

Avarayvroe is common among the Evangelists, and in the Septuagint. 
Paul uses it, in the citation from the Old Testament, in Rom. xi.10. Paul, 
then, was familiar with the word. In our epistle, it is found only twice ; 
viz. ix. 6; xiii. 15. In this same epistle we find the Pauline ravrore 
also; viz. in vii. 25. Now, as to the epistle to the Romans, Galatians, 
Ephesians, and 2 Timothy, each has the word zavrore but once ; the first 
epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus, not at all. . If the fact that ravrore 
is used no more than once, is proof that our epistle is not Pauline, then 
surely these other epistles must be ranked in the same class. The same 
fact must surely afford the same argument in both cases. But as this 
proves more than Schulz is willing to allow, we may suppose he will not 
insist on such an argument. 

(3.) Our epistle uses avaxawiZew and éycavile: for which Paul 
employs dvaxaivovy and dvaveovc0a.” p. 143. 

"AvaxauwiZey occurs only once, Heb. vi. 6. "Eykauwiew but twice, 
Heb. ix. 18; x. 20. On the other hand, dvaxavody is found in Paul only 
‘wice, 2 Cor. iv. 16. Col. ili. 10; and dvaveovcGac but once, Eph. iv. 23. 
Now as dvaxawilw, avaxavow, and dvavedw, are all either of classic or Sep- 
tuagint usage, and are of the same signification, the use of one or the 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 189 


other, so few times as they are employed in the Pauline epistles and in 
ours, can afford no argument in favour of a different writer. As to 
éyxawviZew, to consecrate, to initiate, it is a verb of a different meaning 
from the others, and is not used in the sense in which Paul employs 
either dvakaudw Or avavedw. 

(4.) ‘ There is, in our epistle, an abundance of verbs ending in -éZw, 
such as can be no where else found in the New Testament ; above all, in 
Paul’s epistles.”’ p. 142. 

(a) The greater part of the verbs in -iZw, produced by Schulz as 
appropriate to our epistle, are found often in the New Testament, and in 
Paul; viz. AXoy/ZecOar, in other writers of the New Testament 6 times, in 
Paul 34, in the epistle to the Hebrews but once ; éupaviZew in New Tes- 
tament 8, in Hebrews only twice; carapriZery, New Testament 5, Paul 5, 
Hebrews 3; xabapiZew, New Testament 24, Paul 3, Hebrews 3; xoyizer, 
New Testament 5, Paul 3, Hebrews 3; pepiZeww, New Testament 7, 
Paul 5, Hebrews 1; dpiZeev, New Testament 6, Paul 1, Hebrews | ; 
éyyiZew, New Testament 38, Paul 2, Hebrews 2; ywpigew, New Testa- 
ment 5. Paul 6, Hebrews 1; guwrilew, New Testament 5, Paul 4, 
Hebrews 2 ; xafiZery, New Testament 40, Paul 4, Hebrews, 4; ypnpari- 
ZeoOar, New Testament 5, Paul 1, Hebrews 3. All these verbs, more- 
over, are common to the Septuagint and to classic Greek. 

(b) Other verbs of this class, adduced by Schulz, are used in our 
epistle only once ; viz. avaroyiZecOa, xii. 3; advraywrilecOar, xii. 4; 
karaywvigecOat, xi. 33; Oearpige, x. 33; pile, xi. 37; and ruprari- 
ZeoOa, xi. 35. The three last are denominatives, for which the Greek 
language offered no other forms; so that no choice, in this case, was left 
to the writer. All of them are of classic or Septuagint usage. 

(c) Ipocoy Giger, Heb. iii. 10, is a quotation from the Septuagint; of 
which the use of the same word, in ui. 17, is a simple repetition. 

It turns out, then, that of the great multitude of words in -iZw, pecu- 
liar to our epistle, only six are employed, exclusively by it ; and of these 
six, three are denominatives, and necessarily employed, as there was no 
choice of other forms; while the other three occur but once each, and are 
all compound verbs, common to the Septuagint and to the classics. But 
Schulz has not ventured to present us with a view of the numerous verbs 
in -iZw, employed by the New Testament writers and by Paul, which are 
not used at all in our epistle. Selecting only under a single letter, (as 
a specimen of what might be gathered from the whole,) we find the fol- 


190 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


owing, caBorAcZopar, karafiBasopat, Karadicagw, KaraxhiZopat, KaraKonp- 
vilw, karadOdZw, KaravabepariZw, KkaraTovrifopat, Karetovoragw, Karepya- 
ppar, karomrpiZopat, kavparigw, kavrnpidZopar, KAagw, KBapica, kAvdwyvizo= 
par, KohaZopat, KoAapizw, KoTralw, Kougicw, Kpalw, Kpavyagw, KpvoradXiZo, 
kriZw; twenty-four under only one letter; which our author, with all his 
alleged partialities for -iZw, never uses. Surely this is an argument 
unfortunately chosen, and very incorrectly stated. 

(5.) “’Ev7é\Xeo9ar is used in our epistle; Paul uses mapayyeddw, 
dcardoow, or émiraoow.” p. 145. 

’Evréd\AecOar is employed only twice, ix. 20; xi. 22. In the New 
Testament it is used fifteen times, although not employed by Paul. 
Paul employs zapayyé\dw only in 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thes- 
salonians, and 1 Timothy; dtaracow only in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 
and Titus; émitaoow only once in Philemon. Do not these words differ 
as much from each other, as each of them does from évré\AcoOar; and 
will not the reasoning be the same, to prove that Galatians and Titus or 
Philemon are spurious, as that our epistle is? And what shall be said of 
all those epistles, where none of these words are at all employed ? 

(6.) ‘Our author employs xa@iZw in a neuter sense, 1. 3; vill. 1; 
x. 12; xii. 2; Paul employs this verb in a transitive sense.” p. 143. 

In the quotation by Paul, 1 Cor. x. 7, it is used in a neuter sense; as 
it is in 2 Thess. ii. 4. It has a transitive sense only in 1 Cor. vi. 4; 
Eph. i. 20. It occurs in no other case, in Paul, so that his usage is 
equally divided. In our epistle, it occurs in the same formula in all the 
four instances where it is employed; and all of these instances refer to 
Ps. cx. 1, (Sept. cix. 1,) where is the like usage of xadov. 

(7.) “« Abstract appellations of God, such as Opdvoe rijc xaptroc, TvEvpa 
rite xaptroc, Opdvos Tie peyadoobyyc, are unheard of in Paul’s writings.” 
p. 144. 

What, then, is rvevpa dywotvnc, Rom. i. 4; Oerdrne, 1. 203 adfOeray 
rov Ozov, true God, 1.25; also wWevdoc, false god, ibid.; and zvevpa 
Zwijc, vill. 2? Is the usage of employing abstract words for concrete 
ones, foreign to the style of Paul? Every one who reads this apostle 
with attention, will be able to answer this question. 

(8.) “ Our epistle calls Christ arat-yacpa rijc ddénc, 1. 3; Paul says, 
eikwy Tov Qeov aopdrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15; and pop) Ocov, in 
Phil. ii. 6.” p. 144. 

Is not popg) Ocod as different from eixwy Ocod dopdrov, as dxabyacua 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ, 191 


rijc GdEng is from the same? And if this argument prove any thing, does 
it not prove that the epistle to the Philippians, which employs popq) 
Ocov, (and not eixwy Ocov,) must also be spurious ? 

(9.) ** In our epistle kaxovyéw is used, xi. 37; xiii. 3; Paul uses OriBw 
instead of this.” p. 145. 

Paul uses sevoywpéopae three times, in his second epistle to the Co-. 
rinthians, (and not once any where else,) to express the same idea that he 
elsewhere expresses by 0\(3w. Is this epistle therefore spurious ? 

(10.) * Our epistle employs évOdpnorg and éyyoia, for which Paul uses 
duadoytopoc and Noyropoc.”” p. 145. 

Aoyiopoc is found in 2 Cor. x. 4; but diadoy:opide in Romans, first 
Corinthians, Philippians, and first Timothy. Is the second Corinthians 
spurious, because it does not use cradoyeopoc ? 

(11.) “ Our epistle uses a&kdunje; for which Paul employs édpaioc, 
aperaxtynroc, OF pay peraxivovpevoc.” p. 145. 

‘Axdunje Is used once only, Heb. x. 32. So dperaxivnroc is used only 
in 1 Cor. xv. 58, and ju) peraxivotpevoc only in Col. i. 23. Now, as in 
first Corinthians and in Colossians both, Paul uses édpatoc as well as 
these words, in order to express the same idea, shall the like choice of a 
synonyme, in another letter, be denied him? And is it reasonable that 
it should expose his letter to the charge of spuriousness, because that, 
out of various synonymes, he has sometimes taken one, and sometimes 
another ? 

(12.) “ Zuprabetv, perprorabety, and rafety, are current in our epistle ; 
Paul uses cvpracyew and racyew.” p. 145, 

Paul uses zacyey five times only, in four of which the present tense 
is required, and of course this form must be used, as there is no present 
waféw. He also employs éxafere twice; viz. in Gal. ii. 4, and 1 Thess. 
ii. 14. Our epistle has this same form, but only three times, v. 8; 
ix. 26; xiii. 12. Here, then, are the same forms, in both Paul and our 
epistle. Besides, are not racyw, ovprdcyw, and cuprabéw, commingled 
forms, and every where exchanged for each other? As to perpiorafeir, 
it is used but once, Heb. v. 2, and is there employed in its classical 
sense. 

(13.) ‘*In our epistle, we find perécxe, cardoywpey; but in Paul, 
peréxery, karéxerv.” p. 145. 

Once only is peréoye used, Heb. ii. 14. On the other hand, the 
Pauline peréxwy is also employed once, in Heb. v. 13. Besides, in all 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles, weréyw occurs only five times, and all of 


hee § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


these are in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Is this the only epistle 
which is genuine ? 

As to kardcxwper, it is found in our epistle only twice, ill. 6; iii. 14; 
while the alleged Pauline xaréyew is also used in x. 43. Besides, are 
not both of these one and the same verb, in different tenses? And may 
not the writer of different epistles employ even a different tense of the 
same verb, when the case demands it, without hazarding the reputation 
of his letters in respect to genuineness ? : 

(14.) ‘‘ Verbal nouns feminine, particularly such as end in -otc, are 
unusually frequent in our epistle; and, when put in the accusative by 
eic, they are employed instead of the infinitive mode with eic 70 before it ; 
which latter is the construction that Paul employs, even to excess, and 
in a manner not consentaneous with Greek idiom.” p. 146. 

Paul is no stranger to the employment of nouns in -ove with eic before 
them in the accusative, in the sense of the infinitive mode with éic 70; 
ene) Romsi..17 3 11; 253 5v. 185° xiv..1;)1, Cor. xine4, 25.) In regard 
to other feminine nouns, put in the accusative with cic, and used as the 
infinitive with cic ro, see Rom. i. 5.16; ii. 7; v. 16; vi. 19. 223 ix. 
Qhbis 22,23. xi lelOls ext 95, xv, 18s oxvis. 26:5 Cor, aera 
v. 5; x. 31; xvi. 15. All these cases have respect to nouns feminine 
only; very many cases might be added of nouns of the masculine form, 
employed in the same way. The above instances of the feminine forms 
are selected from only two epistles of Paul. I have found more than 
forty cases, of the same kind, in his remaining acknowledged epistles. 

On the other hand; as to the excessive and unclassical use of the 
infinitive with cic 76, by Paul, I do not find it to be as Schulz has stated 
it. In Romans, I find fifteen cases of infinitives with cic 7d; in 1 Cor. 
there are five cases; in 2 Cor. there are four; in Gal. one; in Eph. 
three; in Phil. four; in Col. not one; in 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus, and 
Philemon, not one. But in our epistle, we have the infinitive with éic 76, 
in ii, 175 vil..25; vill. 3; ix. 14.285 x. 2, (cca 70;) x. 15, (perairo;) 
xii. 10; xiii. 21; i. e. seven cases, just the same as the Pauline ones, 
and two more (x. 2. 15) of the same nature. If the want of frequency 
with respect to this construction proves the spuriousness of our epistle ; 
what does the same thing prove, in respect to the longer epistle, called 
the first to the Corinthians, which exhibits it only five times? And what 
is to be said of the five epistles named above, which do not at all exhibit 
this favourzte construction of Paul ? 

In regard to the frequency of nouns ending in -ove, the proportion 1s 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 193 


not greater than in several of the Pauline epistles; as any one may 
determine by consulting a Greek concordance. 

(15.) ‘ Our epistle uses mapogvopoc; Paul Zidoc.” p- 148. 

Tlapoévepoc is used only once, Heb. x. 24, and there not in the sense 
of Zoe. 

(16.) “ Our epistle uses zpeoBuirepor for ancients? Paul uses marepec.” 
p. 149. 

Paul uses zarégec, in this way, only in Rom. ix. 5; xi 28; xv 8. As 
to xpeofurepor, it isa common word for O°, ancients, Matt. xv.2. Mark 
vii. 3. 5. also Sept. What should hinder Paul from selecting either of 
these synonymes at his pleasure ? 

(17.) “* Our author uses rpo0fsréropaec; Paul uses zpoerodtw, mpo- 
opigw, mporiOnju. Our author uses avricabiornpu; Paul avOiornpe,” p. 149. 

Ip0(3éropcae Occurs only in xi. 40, and is synonymous, in some of its 
meanings, with the other verbs named. Besides, is there not as much 
departure from uniformity, in employing the several words, rpoeropdcw, 
mpoopilw, mportOnu, as there is in using zpoPAéropar? And is not dyre- 
caOiornpu a Classic and Septuagint word, and synonymous with avOéornp ? 
Must a writer never employ but one and the same word ? 


II. Words employed in the epistle to the Hebrews in a sense different from that in 
which Paul uses them. 


Some of the objections, drawn from words of this class, have already 
been noticed above. 

(18.) “ MaxpoOupia, paxpobupety means patient warting or expectation, 
in our epistle; in Paul, it means lentty towards others.” p. 150. 

Paul employs it in other senses than that of dentty. E. g. Col. i. 11, 
patient endurance of evil ; so 2 Tim. iii. 10 prob. iv. 2, see Wahl’s Lex. 
In the same sense it is probably used in Heb. vi. 12. 15. But if this be 
not allowed; it is enough to say that paxpoOupia, in the sense of patient 
expectation, is agreeable to Hellenistic usage. See Job vii. 16. Sept., 
and James v. 7, 8. 

(19.) ‘* KaradeirecOar and arodeixecOa are used, by our author, in the 
sense of restare, reliquum esse ; they are not so used by Paul.” p. 150. 

KaraXeiresOac is used, actively in the like sense, in Rom. xi. 4; and 
this sense is classic and Hellenistic. ’*AzoXeérecfar is used in the active 
voice by Paul, in 2 Tim. iv. 13. 20, in a sense as kindred to the use of it 
in our epistle (where it is passtve,) as one of these voices can be to the 
other, in regard to a verb of this nature. 

o 


194 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


(20.) ‘*'¥rdoracrc, in our epistle, has a different sense from that in 
Paul’s epistles.”’ p. 150. 

I am not able to perceive the difference between imdorace in 2 Cor. 
ix. 4; xi. 17; and in Heb. iii. 14; xi. 1. These are all the instances in 
which this word is employed by Paul or in our epistle, excepting Heb. i. 3, 
where the word is used in the classical sense of the later Greek writers. 
See Wahl’s Lex. on tzdoracie. 

(21.) ‘* Aédyoc, in Hebrews, means word given, assurance, decla- 
ration ; in Paul, doctrine, command, word in opposition to deed.” p. 150. 

So in Heb. xiii. 7, Aéyoe means doctrine, as also in vy. 13; vi. 1. On 
the other hand, in 1 Cor. xv. 54, it means assurance or declaration ; as 
also In Rom. im. 6. 9. 1 Cor. iv. 19: 2 Cor. a, 48s. 2 my ae 
il. 1; iv. 9. Surely there is no ground for distinction here. In the 
sense of account, too, Paul and our epistle agree; e. g. Rom. xiv. 12, 
Heb. iv. 13; xii. 17. 

(22.) “ Tadic, in Hebrews, means series, succession ; Paul uses it for 
good order, arrangement.” p. 150. 

Tadécc, in the Septuagint, answers to min prescribed order or arrange- 
ment, Prov. xxix. 24 [xxxi. 26]; to JAY, Job xxviii. 13, Aquila’s transla- 
tion. In the Sept. Job xxiv. 5; xxxvi. 28, it has the sense of pre- 
scribed arrangement. This sense fits, equally well, 1 Cor. xiv. 40. Col. 
ii. 5, and all the cases where it is used in our epistle; viz. v. 6. 10; 
vi. 20; vii. 11. 17. 21. all of which are merely the same instance of rdétc 
repeated. But, even if this exegesis be not admitted, still, it is enough 
to say, that rdéc is employed in both the senses named by Schulz, in the 
Septuagint Greek, and also in classic authors. May not Paul, like any 
other writer, employ the word, in different parts of his writings, (as he 
does a multitude of other words,) with different shades of meaning ? 

(23.) ‘* If\eiwy is used by our author in the sense of prestantior ; by 
Paul, only for more.” p. 151. 

In Heb. iii. 3; vil. 23, relwy is used in the sense of more; certainly 
in the last instance. On the other hand, in the sense of prestantior, it 
occurs only once, x1.4, And this sense is supported both by classic and 


Septuagint usage. 
III. Favourite expressions, and peculiar phraseology. 


Of these, Schulz has collected together a great number; so great, that 
if they are truly what he names them, they must render the genuineness 
of our epistle suspected, to every critical reader. But whether he has 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ 195 


rightly attributed to these words and expressions the characteristics 
which he gives them, remains to be examined. 

(24.) “* The use of yap, in our epistle, is excessive ; so much so, that 
a translator, if he means to avoid misleading his readers, must often pass 
it over unnoticed. Paul is less frequent in the use of this particle; and 
employs it only in cases where it has a meaning.” p. 152. 

In the New Testament before me, the epistle of Paul to the Romans 
occupies fourteen pages; that to the Hebrews, ten. In Romans, I find 
yup one hundred and forty-five times, 1.e. on an average, more than ten 
to a page; in our epistle, I find it ninety-one times, i. e. on an average, 
a little more than nine to a page. So much for this favourite particle of 
the author of our epistle. 

(25.) “ The words rpoogépe and rpoogpopa, are used times almost 
without number, in our epistle, in respect to Christ’s offering up himself 
before God, by means of his death; Paul does not use the verb at all, 
nor the noun but once, Eph. v. 2, in this sense.” p. 153. 

These words are employed in respect to the offering by Christ, in 
Heb. ix. 14. 25, 28; x. 10. 12. 14. s¢x instances; which, considering the 
nature of the comparison between Christ’s death and the Jewish offerings, 
is rather to be wondered at for unfrequent, than for frequent occurrence. 
But is it not truly surprising, that Schulz should produce, as examples 
which have respect to the offering made by the death of Christ, xpoc- 
gépey and zpoogopa in Heb. v. 1. 3. 7; viii. 3, 45 ix. 7.9; x. 1, 2. 5. 8. 
11.18; xi. 4.17; xii. 7? all of which refer to Jewish offerings, excepting 
xil. 7, which has wholly another sense. Nor is the language of our 
epistle limited to rpocgpépery and xpoogopa. The writer uses dvagépw, in 
vil. 27 bis; 1x. 28; xiii. 15; which is also used by other New Testament 
writers, e.g. James il. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 24. As to the frequency with 
which xpocpopa is used, it is found only in five instances; two of these 
(x. 5. 8,) are quotations from the Old Testament; and the other three, 
(x. 10. 14. 18,) are all plainly occasioned by the quotations just named, 
as they are employed in reasoning upon it. No where else, in our 
epistle, does the writer use this word; but he employs @vaia no less than 
fifteen times, which word Paul has also employed five times. Consider- 
ing the nature of the discussion in our epistle, is there any ground for 
the objection made by Schulz? 

(26.) “"Eyyifew rp Oe, and zposépyecOar rH OH are frequent forms 
in our epistle ; but not so in Paul.” p. 153. 
The first of these phrases occurs only once, vii. 19. The frequency 
02 


196 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


of it, therefore, should not have been alleged. But the same verb as 
applied to time, is used in Heb. x. 25, and in Rom. xiti. 12. That 
éyyiew 7@ Oe@ was a usual form of Hebrew Greek, is evident from 
James iv. 8. 

In respect to zpocépyecOau, it is nearly a synonyme with éyyiZew, and 
is used a great number of times in the New Testament, and by Paul in 
1 Tim. vi. 3, but in the figurative sense of attending to, giving heed to. 
The use of it in our epistle, (it is employed seven times,) is occasioned 
by its correspondence with the Hebrew 29), which describes the 
action of approaching God with an offering ; an idea which, from the 
nature of the comparisons instituted, must of necessity frequently occur. 

(27.) “Such forms as AapPavew reipav—puoarodociav—apyy— 
TLjuyv—veKpove—érayyediav—érayyehiac, are frequent, and peculiar to 
our epistle.” p. 153. 

In Paul, too, we have A\apBavew yap —aroorod}y—onpeiov—karan- 
ayy —rEpiTceLay — ahoppjy—rvevpa dovrelac—avevpa violeciagc— 
Kpiwa—tvevpa TOV KOopov—pucbdv—Poa/seiov —arépavoy —torov —oiKoco- 
puyy — dboriov — tpac—xpiowrov—eray yediav—popgiv—évToAv—vr op- 
vnow. Is not this equally peculiar ? 

(28.) “ AcaOjxen, and the compounds and derivatives of riévae are 
unusually frequent in our epistle.” p. 154. 

AcaOjcn is employed by Paul nine times; but in our epistle, where 
the nature of the comparison lies between the old covenant and the new, 
the more frequent use of this word was altogether to be expected. Out 
of the seventeen instances, however, in which our author uses it, six are 
quoted from the Old Testament, viz. vili. 8, 9 bis, 10; ix. 20; x. 16; 
and three more are in phrases transferred from the Old Testament, viz. 
ix. 4 bis, x. 29; so that eight instances only belong properly to our 
author’s style. Could a less number than this be rationally expected, 
considering the nature of the discussion ? 

As to the uncommonly frequent use of the compounds and derivatives 
of riOnt, in our epistle, the following is the result of comparison. Aca- 
7éOnpu, four times in Hebrews, two of which are in quotations, viz. vill. 
10; x. 16, In the other two cases, the word is employed in a sense 
different from the one usual in the New Testament, viz. ix. 16, 17. 
MerdOeoe is one of the &xaé Neydpeva of our epistle ; (see on these § 29.) 
MerariOype is used three times; also in Gal. i. 6; aferety, Hebrews 
once, Paul six times ; a0érnowc, Hebrews twice; vopoBeretv, Hebrews twice, 
(vopoSecia in Rom. ix. 45) ériSeoic, Hebrews once, Paul twice ; zpdSeare, 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 197 


Hebrews once, Paul six times ; aoriSnur, Hebrews once, Paul four times. 
Can the position of Schulz be supported, when the result of investigation 
turns out thus ? 

(29.) ‘* TeXewdr, to bring to perfection, to advance to the highest 
mark, is a favourite expression of our epistle.” p. 154. 

It is employed in i. 10; v.93; vii. 28; xii. 23; but in a different 
acceptation in vii. 19; ix.9; x. 1.14; xi. 40; perhaps the last instance 
belongs to the other category. To the former alleged peculiar sense of 
redevow, Paul is no stranger, Phil. ii. 12; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. Other 
Hellenists, also, employ it in the same manner; Luke xiii. 32. The 
derivate forms, reXeiwore and redecdrne, Vu. 11, xii. 2, occur once only in 
this epistle. TeXeiwore, also, in Luke i. 45. 

(30.) ‘* Koetrrwy is employed frequently, by our author, in a sense 
altogether peculiar, viz. in the sense of more excellent.” p. 154. 

In the same sense Paul uses it, 1 Cor. xii. 31; a sense, moreover, 
which is common to classic and Hellenistic usage. 

(31.) “ Ai@ywe is unusually frequent; e. g. aiwyoc joined with owrn- 
pia—Koipa—rvevpa—XvT pwore—Khypovopia—duaShxy, &e.”” p. 154. 

But Paul uses aiwyvcoc Swi}—pdvoe—Oede—fapoce—aiwrea Prexdpueva— 
aiwroc def poc—rapakAnorc—Kparoc—ovén. Paul uses the word twenty- 
four times; our epistle only six. 

(32.) “* Zw} and Ziv are used very frequently by our author, to denote 
perpetuity, lasting continuance.” p. 155. 

Sorthey are ‘by! Paul; erg. Romsix,26.. 2 Cor.,ii..3 5. vi. 1G. 
1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. ui. 15; iv. 10; and this sense is frequent in the 
New Testament. 

(33.) ‘*The frequent use of zac in the singular, in our epistle, is 
striking.” p. 155. 

Our epistle makes ten pages in the edition of the New Testament 
lying before me; and I find wdc, in the singular, sixteen times in it, i. e. 
on an average, about once and a half to each page. The epistle to the 
Ephesians makes four and a half pages, and I find the same 7ae in it 
twenty-three times, i. e. on an average more than five times to each page. 
So much for the strikengly frequent use of wdc in our epistle ! 

(34.) ‘The words dSev, ywpic, éavrep, and advvaroy, are unusually 
frequent in our epistle.” p. 155. 

"Oey is not used in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, (see, in respect 
to dak Neydpera, §29;) but in the New Testament it is common. Xwpic 
Paul uses fifteen times. ’Edyzep is peculiar to Hebrews, and occurs 


198 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


thrice. "Addvaroy is employed four times in our epistle, twice by Paul, 
and four times by the other writers of the New Testament. 

(35.) ** Compounds of words with ed, are favourite forms with our 
author.” p. 155. 

The following results will show how far this is well founded. EtSeroec 
occurs in Hebrews once ; evSirnc, once; evapesov, Hebrews 1, Paul 8; 
evapestw, Hebrews 3; evapes@c, Hebrews 1; ev\aeca, Hebrews 2; eida- 
Béopat, Hebrews 1; evrorta, Hebrews 1; eirepisaroc, Hebrews 1; evdoyla, 
Hebrews 2, Paul 9; evdoyeiv, Hebrews 6, Paul 8; evcatpoc, Hebrews 1; 
evcoxeivy, Hebrews 3, Paul 11. 

On the other hand, compare the compounds of this sort in Paul, which 
do not occur in our epistle ; viz. evyerijec, evayyéuor, evayyedtsije, evooxia, 
eveoyeoia, evSéwe, EvKapéw, EvKapwc, Ev’oYyNTOE, EVYOLA, EVpETKCOTOC, EVO- 
Ootpar, evTpdaceKToc, EUTPbTECpOC, EVTPOCWTEW, EVGEJELA, EVEE/ELY, EVTEOC, 
evonpoc, EVoTAYXV0C, EVOXNMLOVWC, EVaXNMLOVN, EVTXT LW, EVTPATENA, EVHY- 
pict, eVGNpoc, Evppaiv, EVXAapLsEW, EVXApPLTIU, EVXApIsOC, evxpnsoc, eipuxéw, 
evwoia. Can there be any foundation, now, for the assertion of Schulz ? 

(36.) ‘* Compounds with aya are unusually frequent, in our author.” 
p. 156. 

The fact stands thus. Once only are dvadéxopat, avabewpéw, avaKxat- 
vio, avayw, avakdprrw, avahoyifopat, avasavpdw, avaréddw, used in our 
epistle. ’Avagépw is employed four times. In Paul, on the other hand, 
we find, avaBatvw 7, dvayyéd\dw 2, avayivwokw 8, dvayvwor 2, avayw |, 
avalaw 2, dvalwrupéw 1, dvabdddw I, avabepa 5, avaxaiyworc 2, dvaKxac- 
vow 1, avaxadtrrw 2, avaxepadaiopar 2, dvakdrtw 2, avaxpivw 10, ava- 
Aap Bavw 4, avadvore 1, dvadtvw 1, dvadioxw 1, dvadoyia 1, avapev 1, 
dvavedw 1, avarigw 1; avatiog 1, dvatiwg 2, dvaravw 4, avaréprw 1, 
dvarodoynroc 2, avatAnpdw 5, avasardw 1, avariOnpe 1, avarpérw 2, 
avaPixw 1; all of which are wanting in the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Is there any want of frequency, in compounds of this sort, in the writings 
of Paul? Rather, is there not even a want of frequency, with respect to 
words of this class, in our epistle ? 

(37.) ‘Good periods, with comparisons by éco0v—rogoiro, with « 
yup—roe oé, with caOwc, &c. are not so frequent in Paul’s writings as 
here.”’ p. 156. 

In what other epistle has Paul had so frequent occasion for com- 
parisons ? 

(38.) “ Xwrnpia, in the sense of Christecn happiness, is peculiar to 


our epistle. “Av7iAoyia is also peculiar.” p. 156. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 199’ 


(a) Our epistle does not limit the word cwrnoia to such a sense. It is 
employed in its usual acceptation, in ii. 10; xi. 7; and probably in v. 9: 
vi. 9; ix. 28. On the other hand, Paul uses cwrnpia for Christian 
happiness, Rom. x. 1.10; xi. 11. Eph. 1.13; 1 Thess. v. 8,9. 2 Thess. 
fe VS) 2 Tiniy i: P52 

(b) As to avrivoyia, it is not found, it is true, in Paul’s acknow- 
ledged epistles; but it is in Jude, ver. 11; and the verb, avriAréyu, is 
mom, x: 2). Tits 1.19? 1.9. 

(39.) “‘ Maprupety and paprvpetobar, in the sense of bearing honorary 
testimony, are peculiar to our epistle.” p. 156. 

They are not. See Rom. x. 2; 1 Tim. v. 10; and often in the Gospels, 
- as may be seen in any of the New Testament lexicons. 

(40.) ‘*The following habitual expressions, so often employed by 
Paul, are wanting in our epistle: viz. ob 0é\w bude ayvociv—Oerw ipa 
eldeve, —rovro Oe gypu—yvupicw (yvwpizopev) o& bpiv—oida yup—otdaper 
6&, &o.—ywwokey O€ vpac (otXopar—ri our Epovplev—anN’ épet Tic—épEtc 
Obv jLor—i} wyvoeire—pr) yévorro—zt oby—rl yap—dpa odv—pevorrye.” 
p- 157, seq. 

If the want of these forms of expression in our epistle proves it to be 
spurious, then the same argument must prove a great part of Paul’s 
epistles to be so. E. g. ov Sédw bpae ayvoety is not in Galatians, Phi- 
lippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 
Philemon. Favourite as Schulz represents this phrase to be, it is found 
only in Romans twice, 1 Corinthians twice; and in 2 Corinthians, ov yap 
Dedopey pac ayvoeiy once. 

Odrw oe tpde eidévac is once in 1 Cor. xi. 3, and wanting in all the 
other Pauline epistles ; an expression, therefore, singularly favourite. 

Totro é€ dn is in 1 Corinthians twice, and wanting in all the rest of 
Paul’s works. 

Tvwpilw (yvwptlouev) dé tiv, Paul uses four times. The verb is em- 
ployed some twenty times, in all his epistles, but not in the formula 
mentioned by Schulz. 

Oida, oidapev, &c. is used often by Paul, indeed unusually so; in our 
epistle less frequently. In x. 30 we have otdapev, and five other cases of 
derivatives from ciéw or eidéw occur. 

Twookewy 0€ tac Bovdopar, occurs only in Phil. i. 12. 

Ti ody épovpev, in Romans six times, and no where else. Which then 
is spurious, the epistle to the Romans, or all thé others ? 

"Epeic oby por, only twice, Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19. 


200 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


’Epet rec, Only once, 1 Cor. xv. 37. 

*H ayvoeire, only twice, Rom, vi. 3. vii. 1. 

M7) yévorro, only in Galatians and Romans. 

Ti yap, not in Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, first Thessalonians 
second Thessalonians, first Timothy, second Timothy, Titus. 

Ti ody, not in any of Paul’s epistles, except Romans, first Corinthians 
and Galatians. 

”Aoa ody, only in the epistle to the Romans, Galatians once, Ephesians 
once, first Thessalonians once, second Tessalonians once. ”Aoa is used 
by our author too, iv. 9; xii. 8. 

Mevovyye, in Romans, Philippians; but no where else in Paul’s 
epistles. 

Certain is it, then, that the same argument which would prove the 
spuriousness of our epistle, would also prove the spuriousness of more or 
less of Paul’s acknowledged epistles; for there is not a single phrase 
mentioned by Schulz, in all his list of ‘* favourite expressions often 
repeated by Paul,” which is not wanting in more or less of his acknow- 
ledged epistles. The words oicda, otcapev, &c. only, are to be expected. 
Many of these favourttisms we see, too, upon examination, turn out 
to belong only to some single epistle; e.g. Oé\w 6& tude eidévac, 
rovro ce gnu, yuwwoxew Ce tude Povopar, rl ody épodper, Epeic ody 
pot, épet tec, and 7 ayvoetre. It is difficult to conceive how a man of 
Schulz’s intelligence could willingly risk the hazard of such arguments 
as these. 

I have omitted no argument of a philological nature, which Dr. Schulz 
has brought forward, excepting a few azaf XNeydueva, of which I shall 
hereafter take notice. If the reader hesitates in regard to the sufficiency 
of some parts of the answers to Schulz, which I have laid before him, I 
request him to suspend his decision, until he shall have read through the 
sequel ; in which the general method of argument used by Schulz and 
Seyffarth, will be the subject of further observation. Before I proceed 
to this, however, the allegations of Seyffarth, (in cases wherein they 
differ from those of Schulz, and from those made by Bertholdt and 
others, which have already been examined,) must be considered. I do 
not aim at writing a regular review of Seyffarth’s whole book; but 
merely to pass in review such arguments of his, as have not already been 
examined, omitting only those, on which it cannot well be supposed that 


he placed any important reliance. 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 201 


§ 28. Objections of Sey ffarth examined. 


I shall first examine the objections drawn from the alleged « pecu- 
liarity of the matters treated of” in our epistle. 

(1.) “* Paul concerns himself only with those churches he himself 
established. He was not the founder of any church purely Hebrew. 
The person who, in our epistle, addresses the Hebrews, must have sus- 
tained a relation to them very different from that which Paul sustained.” 
§ 47. 

Is any thing plainer, however, through the whole epistle, than the fact, 
that the writer of it was not a founder or bishop of the church whom he 
addresses? Not a hint of either of these relations is discoverable. The 
circumstances, then, agree altogether with the condition of Paul, who 
did not found, or preside over, the Hebrew churches. 

But the assumption, that Paul never concerned himself with any 
churches of which he was not himself the founder, is manifestly errone- 
ous. Did not this apostle write his epistle to the Romans, before he 
ever saw Rome? See Rom. 1. 13. xv. 24. Are not the expressions, in this 
epistle, as affectionate and as authoritative, to say the least, as in the 
epistle to the Hebrews? Paul, surely, had a very deep sympathy and 
tender concern for his Jewish brethren. See Rom. ix. 1, seq. x. 1, seq. 
xi. 1, seq. Compare, for expressions of kindness, Heb. vi. 10, seq. 
x. 32 seq., in particular v. 34, if the reading decpoic pov be adopted ; 
and Titmann, in his recent edition of the New Testament, has adopted it. 

(2,) “* Paul no where treats formally of the dignity of Jesus; nor does 
he any where employ such arguments as our epistle exhibits, against 
defection from Christianity.” p. 104. 

Paul no where else treats of the resurrection, in such a manner as the 
1 Cor. xv. does; nor of many other subjects, discussed in that epistle ; 
does it follow, that Paul did not write the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
because it has these peculiarities? Besides, the fact is not correctly 
stated by Seyffarth. Surely Rom. ix. 5. Eph. i. 20—23. Phil. ii. 6—11.- 
Col. i. 13—19, contain something about the dignity of Christ; not to 
mention many other passages. ‘That the apostle has no where, except in 
our epistle, entered into a formal comparison of Christ with others, is 
true ; but it is enough to say, that no where else did the occasion 
demand it. 

(3.) « Paul every where inveighs against Jewish opinions; urges 


justification ywptc Eoywy vopov, and ék risewc; dwells on the glorious 


202 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


advent of the Messiah; and urges the equal right of the Gentiles to the 
blessings of the Christian religion. Not a word of all this, in the epistle 
to the Hebrews.” p. 105. 

And where is there any thing of all this, in the first epistle to the 
Corinthians? Must a writer always speak of the very same subjects, and 
in the same way? And if he does not, but speaks pro re nata, is it any 
just ground of suspicion, that such of his letters as are not exactly like 
certain other ones, cannot be genuine ? 

(4.) ** It is wonderful, that our epistle should represent the devil as 
the cause of death, ii. 14; Paul knows nothing of such a cause, see 
2 tim. 1. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 55.” p. 106. 

This objection is built on an exegesis of Heb. ii. 14, which cannot be 
supported ; see the Commentary on this passage. But if the exegesis 
were correct, it would not follow, that the apostle might not, in one 
passage, express a sentiment which he has no where else expressed. See, 
for example, 1 Cor. xv. 22—28. After all, it is not true, that Paul does 
not recognise Satan as the author of the condemning sentence which 
Adam incurred; see 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3, comp. with Rom. v. 
12, seq. 

(5.) “ Paul, when he writes to any church, enters into a particular 
consideration of all their wants, and woes, and dangers; e.g. in his 
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians.” p. 107, seq. 

And does Paul any where show a deeper sympathy for those whom he 
addresses, than the writer of our epistle exhibits? Must every epistle 
which a man writes, be de omni scibilt, or de omni re possibili? As 
Paul was not bishop of the church whom he addresses in our epistle, it 
was not to be expected that he would use the same degree of freedom, in 
all respects, which he uses in some others of his epistles. Particularly, 
may we well suppose, that he would be sparing in localities and person- 
alities, if his epistle was designed to be encyclical; as we have good 
reason to believe it was. 

(6.) ‘* Our epistle every where urges to reAevorn7a ; not so Paul. 
With our author, too, the sonship of Christ is the great rededrne of 
religion; not so in Paul. See 1 Cor. iii. 11, where it is reckoned as 
the foundation. Where too has Paul compared Christ to the angels ?” 
p. 110. 

That Paul does not urge forward those whom he addresses, to a higher 
degree of Christian knowledge and virtue, is an allegation which | 


believe to be novel, and which needs to be met only when something is 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 203 


brought forward to substantiate it. As to the doctrine of Christ’s Son- 
ship being reckoned as the fowndation of Christianity, I find nothing of 
it in 1 Cor. ii. 11, where Christ, in his mediatorial person or character 
simply, is represented. That Paul’s acknowledged epistles have not run 
a parallel between Christ and the angels, is true enough; but how are we 
to show that Paul never could do this in one epistle, because he has not 
done it in another ? 

(7.) ‘* There is more pure and continuous argument in our epistle, 
than in those of Paul,’ 

There is more pure and continuous argument in the epistle to the 
Romans, than there is in the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Co- 
lossians, and Thessalonians; but is this any proof, that Paul did not 
write the latter epistles? And must the tenor of all the epistles which 
any man writes, however diverse the occasion and the subject may be, 
always be one and the same ? 

(8.) ‘* Paul cites the Old Testament with great freedom, at one time 
following the Septuagint, and at another the Hebrew. Our author 
keeps close to the Septuagint.” 

The case is too strongly stated. It is not exactly correct, in either 
respect. But if it were, it does not follow, that in writing to those who 
had the Greek Scriptures in their own hands, and were habitually con- 
versant with them, Paul would not keep closer than usual to the words 
of the ancient oracles. It is altogether natural that he should do so. 


I. Objections drawn from peculiar phrases. 


(9.) “* The following phrases are suz generis, and maxime peculiares, 
Im our epistle ; VIZ. Ovagopwrepov Svopa knpovopsiy, eivar tic TaTépa, O6£y oreda- 
voy, meToldra eivat, apxnyv hap Bavery Aadhoat, apxtepedrc THC duodoyiae, peapriouy 
rév eXarnpévwy, Tappnoia Tij¢ éiidog, orotysia THC apie THY NOywy Tod Osod, 
tixvetoPar axpt pepiopod Wuxne TE Kai rvebiparoc, Tpocinxesat Oodvw yaptroc, tf 
avOporwy hapBdvecOar, TepiKkeioOar apapriay, apivar Tov THe aoxie N6yor, Kai ixt 
TH TereoTnTa PioecOa, yedoac0ar dwosig Exovpaviov, pyinrai ray did Tisrewe 
KAnpovopovvTwy, dyKkupa édXridoc, wpoKemmévy eric, tepede ic TO Cinveréc, EvroAr 
amodexarovv, perarienévn teowotvn, Cwi) akardduToc, Kexwpicpévog ad THY 
GpapTwrGy, Ctkaipara Narpsiac, TeptKEKAadUppLEVOE YOUCi, oTdow ~xeW, Tab_ecPat 
mposhepopivny, OwWaxai Eévar, and Ovaia aivécewc,” p. 83. 

Admitting, now, that the same phraseology cannot be found in Paul’s 
epistles ; is not the Greek of these phrases classic or Hellenistic? Is it 
not such as a writer might choose, without any uncommon peculiarities ? 
But without insisting on this, 1 have only to remark, at present, that the 


204 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


same kind of argument which Seyffarth adduces, if it be valid, will 
prove any one of Paul’s epistles to be spurious, with equal force. I 
must refer the reader, for the illustration and proof of this, to § 29 in the 
sequel. 


II. Objections from the peculiar forms and juncture of words, in our epistle. 


(10.) ** Our author makes a peculiarly frequent use of composite 
words. His epistle contains five hundred and thirty-four words of this 
sort; while Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, uses only four hundred 
and seventy-eight.” p. 91. 

Without following on, in the steps of Seyffarth, to examine whether 
his enumeration is correct, I take it as he has presented it. I open my 
New Testament at the epistle to the Colossians accidentally, and proceed 
to count the composite words; which amount, if I have made no mistakes, 
to one hundred and seventy-eight; the number of pages is three. The 
epistle, then, averages fifty-nine composite words to a page. The epistle 
to the Hebrews occupies ten pages, and has, according to Seyffarth, five 
hundred and thirty-four composite words, i.e. on an average, fifty-three 
toa page. If it is spurious for this reason, a fortiorz the epistle to the 
Colossians must be counted spurious also. 

(11.) “* Our author is partial to the use of participles, and of the 
genitive absolute. He employs eighty-four active participles, and one 
hundred and seven passive and middle ones, and seven cases of the geni- 
tive absolute; while in the epistle to the Romans, there are only ninety ° 
active participles, and forty-two passive, and no eases of the genitive 
absolute.” p. 81. 

Allowing the enumeration of Seyffarth to be correct, the average 
number of participles, on each page, will be for Hebrews, nineteen ; for 
Romans, ten. Put now this principle to the test, in some other epistles. 
If I have rightly counted, the epistle to the Colossians has active parti- 
ciples thirty-four, passive forty, pages three, average number of par- 
ticiples to a page, twenty-four. Ephesians has active participles sixty, 
passive twenty-four, pages four and a half, average to a page, twenty- 
three. Of course, if our epistle is spurious, because it employs so many 
as nineteen participles to each page, then these epistles must be spuri- 
ous, which employ twenty-three or twenty-four to a page. 

And as to the genitive absolute, the second Corinthians (which has 
active participles ninety-seven, passive seventy-seven, pages nine, ave- 
rage to a page, nineteen, the same as in our epistle,) has the genitive 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 205 


absolute three times. Can any thing be more inconclusive, now, than 
such a species of reasoning ? 

(12.) “* Our author has peculiar junctures of words; e. g. Eoyaroy 
Hpepwv, TO GperaBeroy rijc Povdjijc, kowwveéw with the genitive, deapopwrepoc 
mapa, pirat mpoc TWa, avaoTacic TOY VEKPOY, rabjpara Oavarov, ayayey 
cic Cdkay, Kparijoae With the accusative, evayyedigw with the accusative, 
advvaroy with the infinitive after it, ai rpdrepoy tyuépar, xaraPaddew Mepé- 
Aur.” p. 81. 

Some of these phrases are Pauline: e. g. avdoraote vexoedv, Rom i. 4; 
xv. 12. 21.24. Phil. ili. 11. So evayyedtZw with the accusative, Rom. 
x. 5 bis. 2 Cor. xi. 7. Gal. 9. In regard to the others, if they prove 
any thing, they will prove too much; for the same kind of argument 
would show, (as we shall hereafter see,) that the first epistle to the Corin- 
thians is spurious. The phrases in question are all either classic or 
Alexandrine Greek; and how can it be shown, then, that it was either 
impossible or improbable that Paul should employ them ? 


III. Objections drawn from the use of words employed, in our epistle, in a sense 
different from that which Paul attaches to them. 


(13.) “¢ Yidc Oeov, in our epistle, designates the higher nature of Christ, 
and not the Messiah simply. In Paul, it has the latter sense.” p. 60, seq. 

Paul also uses it in the former sense, in Rom. i. 3, 4; viii. 3. 32, and 
probably in 2 Cor. i. 19. In our epistle, it is used in the sense, alleged 
by Seyffarth to be the exclusive one, only in i. 2, and perhaps vii. 3. In 
other cases, it is employed in the usual sense of Messiah; viz. in 
Eo bis. S> iv. 14 soy". 8s) Vie Gs vil. 28 xt 29. 

(14.) ** KAnporvdpoe lord, possessor, is peculiar to our epistle.” p. 63. 

Not so. In Rom. tv: °13,°14 5 ‘vii/17. Gal. iti. 29::) iv. 7s: Tit. aii. -7 
it is used in the same way. Indeed, the usage of cAnpovdpoc, in this sense, 
is Pauline, instead of anti-pauline. 

(15.) “ Our author uses izdoraorc in the sense of fundamentum, Heb. 
i. 3; Paul no where employs it in such a sense.” p. 66. 

In Heb. i. 3, trécrace is unique. In iii. 14. 1. trdcracic means 
confidence ; so in Paul, 2 Cor. ix. 4. xi. 17. 

‘16.) “* "Epyoy, in the sense of beneficence, Heb. vi. 10, is peculiar 
to our epistle.” p. 76. 

The meaning attributed to gpyov here, is deduced merely from the 
context, viz. from dydazn¢ which follows it. The sense of égpyov itself 


206 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


here does not differ from that which it has in Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 
Tit. ii. 14; specially 2 Cor. ix. 8. 1 Tim. vi. 18. So also in Matt. 
xxvi. 10. Acts ix. 36. 

(17.) ‘ IIpAtkoe in our epistle, vil. 4, means quam insignis, how dis- 
tinguished ; Paul applies it only to magnitude, Gal. vi. 11.” p. 77. 

These two instances are the only ones, in which zy\tkog occurs in 
the New Testament. IIy\ixoce properly signifies, of what magnitude. 
It may be applied either im a physical or moral sense. In Gal. vi. H1, 
it is applied in the former sense, (so also in the Septuagint, Zach. ii. 2.) 
in Heb. vii. 4. it is used in the latter sense; at least, it designates 
greatness of rank or condition. Can any thing be more natural thar 
the derivation of this secondary sense of the word, in such a case 
from the primary one ? 

(18.) *‘ Oikoc, Heb. viii. 8. 10, is used in the sense of tota gens, 
Paul does not employ it in this sense.” p. 77. 

It is sufficient to reply, that both of these imstances are not our 
author’s own words; they are quotations from the Septuagint. As 
to the writer’s own use of otxoc, he employs it in the usual sense, viz. 
household. See Heb. il. 2—6; x. 21; xi. 7, and comp. 1 Cor. 1. 16; 
1 Mime» 4; 5.12. 153 v4. 2) Tim1.,16: iv.,19> we. also Acts war 
TOs; x2, ee: 

(19.) ‘’Extouvaywy? is peculiar to our epistle,” p. 77. 

It is employed but once, Heb. x. 25. Only once more is it found 
in all the New Testament, and that is in 2 Thess. ii. 1, in a sense like 
that in Heb. x. 25. If any thing can be fairly deduced from this, it 
is in favour of the Pauline origin of our epistle. 

(20.) ‘* Koopuxoy, in the sense of exornatum, Heb. ix. 1, is peculiar. 
Paul uses xéopuoc and Kexoopnuévoc.” p. 78. 

The exegesis of this word is manifestly erroncous. See Heb. ix. 
124 smi. (22. Rev. xxi. 2. 

(21.) ‘‘Tlepuxadtarw is used, Heb. ix. 4, to express the covering of 
vessels; in Tim. ii. 9, for the veiling of women.” p. 79. 

Tleorcadvrrw is not used in | Tim. ii. 9, nor any where in Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles. It is used only in Mark xiv. 65. Luke xxii, 64; 
and there, in the same sense as in Heb. ix. 4. 

(22.) “‘ Suvelénove is used, in our epistle, in the sense of animus, 
mens ; by Paul, in the sense of conscience.” p. 79. 

So is it used in the sense of conscience, too, by our author, in xii. 
18, and probably x. 22. In x. 2, it means consciousness. Only in 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 207 


Heb. ix. 9. 14, has it the sense of mens, animus; which also it seems 
to have in 2 Cor. v. 11. 

(23.) ‘‘ Avaspéw is used.in the sense of abolishing, Heb. x. 9; Paul 
uses karapyéw.’ p. 80. 

"Avawéw is used but once; and then in a sense which is common 
in the Septuagint and in classic authors. Karapyéw is also employed 
by our author, Heb. ii. 14, and in the same sense in which Paul employs 
it; which sense is exclusively Pauline. Comp. Luke xu. 7. 

In regard to the words aidy, raétc, and fyobpevor, on which Seyffarth 
also charges peculiarity of signification, in our epistle, they have been 
already examined above. See pp. 157. 158. 194. 


IV. “Ama’ Neyopeva of our Epistle. 


Nearly one half of Seyffarth’s Essay is occupied with reckoning up 
words of this class, §§. 16—28. It is singular, that he should bring into 
this computation words that occur in the quotations made from the Sep- 
tuagint; e. g. ENiccery, TapatiKpacpoc, mpotdxItZw, Tpoxia, Opfoc, &c.; as 
if these were chargeable, as peculiarities, upon the idiom of our epistle. 
Yet such is the ardour with which arguments of this nature have been 
urged by him, Schulz, and others, that the bounds of sober reflection are 
not unfrequently overleaped, and objections undistinguishingly pressed 
into service, by these writers. 

I subjoin a catalogue of these ara Neyopeva, because I wish to put the 
reader in possession of all that is adduced to overthrow the Pauline 
origin of our epistle. The force of the argument, I shall examine in a 
subsequent section. 

I remark here only, that I find, by actual examination, this whole class 
of so-called drat Xeydpueva, almost without exception, are words both of 
classical and of Septuagint or Alexandrine usage. The employment, 
therefore, of words belonging to both these kinds of Greek, can mark 
nothing very peculiar in the style or choice of words adopted by our 
author. The instances alleged by Seyffarth are the following ; viz. 


Chap. I. Wodvpepic cai rodutpérwc, aravbyacpa, yapaKrio, peyadwotvn, Edio- 
cav.* II. Mapappveiy, pucOarodosia, cuverysaprupiw, Boayd, TapaTAnsiwe, dao- 
wecOa. III. Méroyoc, Oeparwyv, raparipacpoc,* mpoocoyCiZo.* IV, ‘Yadderypa, 
agave, ToaxnriZw, BonPea, eveaioc. V. Merpiorabeiv, ixernoiat, airwoc, mpoca- 
yooevdeic, vuOodc, aicOnrhoa, te. VI. Magaderyparifw, Bordyyn, imirvyyxavw 
governing the genitive, avrioyia, aperaOeroc. VII. Kory, ardrwp, aunrwp, ayevea- 


ASynroc, ahwpowwpéevoc, Oenvecé axpoPinta, maroido isoareta, ovvavTawy, 
) ’ ? 5) pLtaoxnc, , 


208 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


abirnotc, arapaBaroc, mavredéic, dpiavroc. VIII. "Exnte, dépa, avagiow, xpnpa- 
rigw, vopobereiv, OvariBévat, ihewe eivat,* wadawiy, apavispoc. IX. *EykavviZopat, 
pavrilw, aimarexxucia, avrirumoc, cvvréaa Tov aidywy. X.’Avwrepoy, rpdcparos, 
dkuvijc, Tapokvopoc, Exovoiwc, POBEepog. évuBpiZery, GOAnorc, OearpizZery, dverdiopodc, 
ypovigetv. XI Evapeoreiv, dorpa, avapiOunroc, raperidnpoc, tpimnvoy, aoréioc, 
Cidraypa, svykakouxety, KaTadoKkoroc, TwapeuOAn, TYpTavicev, KaTaywrilecBat, 
peradzan, Séppa, mpoBdéropa. XIL. Toryapoty, vigoc, apopHvrec, avadoyiZopat, 
kdpve, dvricaiordvar, ikhavOavery, ddtywosiv, vd00c, Taptévar, TpoxLd,* 6p0oc,* 
ivoyXkly, TowroroKia, peTéeTELTa, Pyragay, yvdgoc, CracTéNopar, pavracia, EvTPopoC, 
ExpoBoc, wavyyupic, ceiw, acddevtoc, Karavadiocw. XIII. BonOdc, yovpevoc, 


avabewpiw, Edzrovia, advotredre. 


The whole number is one hundred and eighteen; from which are to 
be substracted those six marked with an asterisk, as they are quoted from 
the Septuagint, and belong not to our author. The amount then of 
dat Neyopeva is one hundred and twelve. And they are collected, too, 
with an unsparing hand; e. g. dzdrwp, apijrwp, wyeveahoynroc, rpipnvor, 
évrpomoc, exgpofoc, and many other words like these, where it is difficult 
to see how the author of our epistle could avoid choosing the very terms 
which he has employed, if we consult the connexion in which they stand. 

This list appears, indeed, quite large and formidable to any one, who 
has not put to the test the principle of reasoning to which it must appeal, 
if any weight be allowed it in the scale of evidence against our epistle. 
That principle I shall bring to the test, by subjecting one of Paul's 
acknowledged epistles to an examination, in the same way, and on the 
same grounds, which Seyffarth, Schulz, and others, have thought proper 
to adopt in the examination of our epistle. 


§ 29. Objections made against the genuineness of our Epistle, com- 
pared with those which may be mude against the First Epistle to 
the Corinthians. 


It often struck me, while engaged in the toilsome and _ protracted 
labour of examining the preceding objections made against the Pauline 
origin of our epistle, by Schulz and Seyffarth, that the only just method 
of weighing the whole force of the arguments, which they deduce from 
peculiarities of phraseology and the choice of words by our author, 
would be, to carry the same principles of reasoning along with us, to the 
examination of one of Paul’s acknowledged epistles, and see whether as 
great a list of expressions and words, foreign to the other acknowledged 
epistles of Paul, might not be found, as in the epistle to the Hebrews 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 209 


This task, so far as I know, has never yet been performed by any critic. 
And yet, suck an experiment seems to be obvious and necessary, in order 
that we may judge, with any confidence, in regard to the alleged singu- 
laritzes of our epistle. I have gone through with the appalling labour of 
performing such a work; and I shall now present the reader with the 
results of this undertaking. 

In making choice of an epistle among the acknowledged writings of 
Paul, I found some difficulty. I chose, at last, the first epistle to the 
Corinthians ; because, like that to the Hebrews, it presents several 
topics that are peculiar to itself. In this respect it has more resem- 
blance to our epistle, than any other of Paul’s acknowledged letters. 
Consequently, a comparison of its peculiarities of phrase and diction, 
with the other epistles of Paul, would be more like a comparison of our 
epistle with these, and would be more just, than a similar comparison of 
any other of Paul’s epistles. 

I divide the peculzarities of the first epistle to the Corinthians, into 
two great classes. 

I. Phraseology peculiar to this Epistle, and found no where in the other acknowledged 
writings of Paul. 

1 Cor. i. 1 ‘Hytaopévor, as a title of Christians, used no where else by Paul. 
2 “Exicadotpevor 7d bvopa Tov Kupiov I. X. as a periphrasis for the idea of Christians. 
5 "Ev xavri imdouricOnre tv abrg. 9 Hic kotywviay rod viod abrov. 10 TMapa- 
Kad bac Oud Tov dvdparog Tov Kupiov I. X....... Paul says, dud I. Xpecrod, Rom. 
xv. 30.—rd aird Néynre, be in unison—Karnoriopévor iv TH adr@ vot. 13 Mepé- 
ptorat 6 Xptardc: is Christ divided? ...... Panl uses pepiZw, in the sense of 
impart, e. g. Rom. xii. 3. 2 Cor, x. 13. 16 Aowréy otk oida, Paul commonly uses 
7d owrdv, Eph. vi. 10. Phil. iii. 1; iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1. 17 Zo¢ia A¥Syou, .. 
Paul uses Abyor cogiac, Col. ii. 23.—KevwOZ 6 sravpdc. 18 ‘O dOyoe 6 Tod cravooi. 


21 Mwpiag rov kyptyparoc. 25 Mwpdy rod Osod. 27 Mupdy rod Kdcopov. 25 
*"AoOevic rod Ocov. 27 ’AcOev® rov Kdopov. 26 Brérere riyv KAjow—oodoi card 
capka—suvaroi, for those in an elevated station. 30 “Oc éyevyOn rypiv cogia .... 
Cucaoobyy TE Kai ayvacpd¢ Kai AToNTpWsIC. 

II. 1 ‘Yzrepoxijy N6you.—rd papripwv Tov Oeot. 2 Ob yap Expwa re eldévan, 
I determined not to make known. 4 MWeOoi copiac NMyor—amddektc TVEUPMLATOS Kai 
Cvvapewc. 5 Lodia avOpuirwv, human subllety. 6 Lodia rod aisvog rovrov, .... 
in 1 Cor. cogia is used seventeen times, in the epistle to the Romans only once, and 
that in a quotation, Rom. xi. 33. 7 Mpowpizev .... pd rév aibvwy. 8” Aoyorrec 
TOU ai@vocg TovToU—KipLog THe OdEnc. 10 ’AmoKkaNbzrey Oia Tov TvEv arog — 
Tvevpa ipevyg —Ta BaOh Tov Oeov. 13 Awaxroic avOpwrivne copiac NOyoue—CuOak- 
TOIg TVEVPATOGC —TVEVPATIKOIS TrEVpaTIKa GvyKoivoyTEC. 14 Wuytkde dvOowrog— 


TVEVPLATUKOS avaKkplverat. 


210 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


IIT. 1 Sapeexotg, as applied to persons. 3 Kara dvOpwroy weourareire. 6 ‘"Eyw 
igurevoa, applied to the labour of a religious teacher—’Azo\Noe éxdrice, Apollos 
supplied with water, applied to the same—Oedg nigave, made to increase, (Hiphil of 
the Hebrews,) no where employed in this sense by Paul in his other epistles, nor 
appropriated to designate such a shade of thought. 8 Amlera: kara roy idtoy Kérov 
--.. Paul says, ward ra gpya,e. g. Rom. ii. 6. 2 Cor. xi. 15. 2 Tim. iv. 14. 
9 Duvepyoi Ocov—Oe0d yewpyrov—Oeod oicodopy. 10 Soddc apyiréxrwy. 11 Oepé- 
Aroy riOecka, 12 'Exroucodopeiv xovodv, apyupoy, k. Tr. X. 13 ‘H apioa OnrtOoee— 
éy mupt amoxadinrerar—ro Tip Coximace. 14 Micbdv apBavew. 15 “Epyov 
Karakaieew—owOjvar wo Oud mupdc. 18 Mwpdc yivecOor. 21 “Ev avOpwroc 
KavyacOa. 23 ‘Ypeic Xouorov, Xprardc Oeov, ye are Christ's, Christ is God's. 

IV. 1 ‘Yxnoérng Xpicrov—oikdvopoe pvaornoiwy. 3 Eic¢ éhayuoroy eivar—jpéoa, 
day of trial, trial. 4 ’Euavt@ cuvedeiv. 5 Tod ratpod Kpiveceyv—Povdai rev kap- 
cidv—Erawoe yiverac ti. 6 Meracynparizery sic, to (ransfer figuratively—ro pr 
dio 5 yéyparra gpovety, not to think of one’s self more highly than the Scriptures 
allow ; Paul uses zap’ 6 .... ¢povety in such a case, Rom. xil. 3, and employs 
goovety bép in the sense of having a regard for, Phil. i. 7; iv. 10.—Oucwdy v7ép 
wee. Kara. 7 Acaxpivey twa, to make one to differ. 8 Kexopecp‘vor civar—Baot- 
Aeverv, to be in a happy or prosperous state. 9 'Eoydroug arodsigar—Oéarpor yé- 
vesOar. 10 Mwpoi dé Xptordy—godroe tv Xprory —ioxvpoi applied to persons— 
ZydoZor in the same manner. 13 Teprka0dppara Tov Kdcopov—rdarvrwy repibnpa — 
two dort. 14 ’Evrpémwy, act. voice, putting to shame ; no where else, except with a 
passive meaning. 15 Hadaywyoi tv Xpuorp—rarépec [2v Xptorp |]—iv Xorg... 
yevvay. 17 ‘Odotc ....+. Tac tv XproTy, Christian doctrines. 19 ’Eay 6 Kupwe 
Oedyjoy. 20 Baowkia rov Oeod.... od ev Ady .... ev duvdpe. 21 "Evy paBdw 
idOeiv. 

V.1"Odwe deoberac—yuvaira ..... xe, to cohabit with a woman. 2 TevOeiv, 
to be sorrowful; Paul, to make sorrowful, 2 Cor. xii. 21. 3 ’Azwy ty owpart, 
(Paul, dretvar tv capxi, Col. ii. 5.)—aapwv 7G wvetpart. 4 LuvaxPevrov ipor, 
cai Tov tuo wvebparoc, is altogether wnique, in the shade of idea. 5 Eig 6dsOpov 
Tie capkoc, iva Td TvEvpa owOF, is altogether peculiar. 7 ’ExxaOaipew.. .. Zounv— 
ro wdoxa ypov (Xproric) érdOn. 8 “Eopralev tv Ciuy maraig—Copn Kakiac Kat 
rrovnpiac—aZipore itucorveiac kai adyPeiac. 10 TWdpvor rov Koopov rovrou—éx Tov 
xécpov t&eOciv, to withdraw entirely from converse with men. 12 Tod¢ Eow, those 
within the church. 

VI. 1 Mpdypa ze, to have ground for a suit at law. Oi dye roy Kdopov 
Kptvovor—avakir xpitnoiwy. 3 ’Ayyéoucg Kpivoiper, altogether sui generis. 4 
Kadizew, to make to sit as judges. 5 Ipdc évrpomjy déyw, also in xv. 34.—duaxpivac 
ava picov. 6 Kpiverat perd, goes to law with—dmuorog, used eleven times in this 
enistle, and not once in Romans, Colossians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, 
Philippians, 2 Timothy, 7 Kpivara, law-suits—aroorepéopat, to suffer one’s self to be 
defrauded—arrosrepiw, to defraud. 9 “Actkot, for Heb. yw. Paul uses the 
word but once, and then in the singular number, Rom. iti. 5, and in quite a different 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 21 


wiry. 11 AckawwOijvae tv dvopare Inoot. 12 Mdvra joe ecre—ouppéper, five times 
in this epistle, and no where else in all of Paul's acknowledged epistles, except twice 
in 2 Cor.—ovordZecOar bd ruvcg. 15 Mid Xpisrov—adpvncg pédy. 16 Kodd\o- 
pevog Kupiv—koddapevog Ty mopyy. 20 'AyopdlecOar rynme—Cokdlew by Tp 
oomart. 

VIL. 1 Puvacde drrecOar, to cohabit with, 2”Eyew yuvaica to marry Ot pos- 
sess awife. 5 ’Exi rd abrd jre, ye may come together. 14 ‘AyidZw, in a sense sui 
generis—daxa@aproc, in a sense peculiar; so also ywcc, which follows. 19 ‘H TEDL= 
rom oddéy .... Paul says, ore reprropy) re ioyier, Gal. v. 63 vi. 15.—% akpoBuc~ 
ria obdey ést—rTihonotg tvrod@y .... Paul says, iraxon) mzewc, Rom. i. 5) Xvi 26p5 
or v7akoy simply, Rom. v. 19; vi. 16; xv. 18; xvi. 19; or he uses t7axovw, Rom, 
vi. 125 vi. 17; x. 16, et sepe. 20 Kdnore, condition in life, rank ; no where so em- 
ployed by Paul. 21 My) cou pedérw, be not solicitous—paddXov yoijoat, prefer. 25 
‘Exurayny Exev—renpivoc smd Kupiov .... Paul uses #de{Onv simply, Rom: 
xi. 30. 2 Cor. iv. 1. 1 Tim. i, 13. 16. 26 Kadov dvOpiry .... Paul uses caddy 
simply, in the same sense, e. ¢. Rom. xiv. 21. Gal. iv. 18. 29 Td Aourdy, hereafter, 
Sor the future. 31 XpaoOa rg xdopyp—ro cxijpa Tov Kdopov. 32 Mepuivay ra 
rou Kupiov. 33 Mepyvgy ra rod xdopou .... Paul uses pepygv rd mepi. 34 
‘Ayia civat cmpare kai rvedpart. 35 T1pd¢ rd oupgépor, for the profit. 37 "Avay- 
knv éxew. 40 Aoxeiv rrvedpa Ocod fyew, truly wnique, in the epistles, 

VILL. 1 Préow tye. 4 Oddéy civat tv xdopy—oddeic Erepoc. 6 ‘Hyty ele Ocdc, 
6 marip, k.7.X. The whole verse is unique, 7 Suveidnorc, conscientious scruples. 
12 ‘Apapravew sic, to sin against—rbrrev cvveidnow. 13 BpGpa ovavdadizer 
..-e-- Paul, dua Bowpa NureicOat, Rom. xiv. 15. 

IX. 1 To gpyov pov .... év Kupip. 2 "AdXoic .... div 1... dmdsodNoe «2. 
Paul uses the gen., 20vv ddécrodoc, Rom. xi. 13; dadorodor ixeAnowdy, 2 Cor. 
Vill. 23; Spay Axdorodog, Phil. ii. 25—oagpayic rije arocroNijc. 5 Tuvaira repit- 
yew—7, 13 ’Eofiew tx, to eat of .... Paul uses simply the accusative, e. g. Rom. 
xiv. 2. 2 Thess. iii. 12. 11 Szreipsey rvevparud—OepiZey capxicd, to have one’s 
temporal wants supplied. 12 ’E&ovcia, property. 16 ’Avdynyn .... eriverrad poe 
«++ Paul, 2 avdyene 2 Cor. ix. 7; war’ dvdyeny, Philem. v.14. 17 Olcovopiay 
miorevOijvat. 19 "EXevOepoc ze .... Paul uses édedOepoc azd Rom. vii. 3. 20 
Kepdaivery, to win over .... in a different sense, Phil. iii. 8. 22 Diveo@ae rote raci 
ra mavra. 24 BoaBeiov AapBavew. 25 POapric .... apPaproce orégavoc. 26 
Aipa dépew, 

“X. 1, 2 The whole of the description presented in these two verses is sui generis, 
and found no where in Paul. 3 Boma rvevparicdy—répa rrvevparicdy. 4 IIvev- 
parikije wérpac—and specially the idea of the whole phrase, rvevparinije dcodovbor- 
one métpac. So also éxwov ix .... Paul uses zuetv (2 aor.) with the accusative, 
Rom. xiv. 21. 11 Tézou cupBaivey .... Paul, rézog simply, Rom. v. 14; or 
yivecOar rizoc, 1 Thess. i. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 12—rd rédn rév aiwywy .... Paul, 
Ecyarat yuéoa, 2 Tim, iii, 1, 13 Metpacpdc avOpmrwoe eiAnde, singular both as to 

P2 


212 § 29. NATURE OF OBIECTIONS EXAMINED. 


the verb and adjective, joined with wempacpdc. 15 ‘Qe dpovipore Neyw. 16 mory- 
piov Trijg evNoyiagc—Kowwria aiparoc—Kowvwvia owparoc. 17 Eic d@prog ....-< 
eivat, said of Christians communing at the Lord’s table. 18 “IopaxX kara 
cdpxa—Kowwvoi Ovotacrnpiov. 19 Tiody pnp. 20 Aamoviorg Ovev—Korvwrode 
Saoviwy yivesOat. 21 TMornpioy datpoviwy—rparela Oaovioy. 27 Kadiw, in 
the sense of inviting to a meal. 32 ’Ampdoxo7o, with the dative after it—zdyra 
Taow apéoKey. 

XI. 2 Mapaddcee catéxer. 3 Ow OF dBpag eidévac—mayric avdpdc KEepads) 
Xpisic—Kepads) Xpisov Oedc. 4 Kara xepadije Exety, to cover the head. 5 Karaw- 
xtvew, to dishonour, .... Paul, to disappoint, Rom, v. 5; ix. 33; x. 11—7éd adré 
rp the same thing as, 1.e. avd with the dative after it. 7 ’Avjp .... eikov nai ddga 
Ocot— yuvy dda avdpic. 9 Ob arp ik yuvaiKdc, K.T.r. 10 "E£oucia, veil or 
token of power—dyyedou, spies. 12 ‘O avijp dud rijc yuvatkic. 14 Pde Oddone. 
17 YuvipyecOar cic Td Kpeitroy .... &ig TO WTTOY. 20 Kupraxdy deizvoy. 23 Tla- 
pahaBety ad .... Paul uses rapadaBeiv rapa, Gal. i. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 6. 24 
Td c&padtrnip ipay Kopevov. 25 Mera 7d dervijoa .... ‘Paul no where uses pera 
before the inf. mode preceded by 76.—2) katy) dtaOhjen tv 7H imp aipare. 27 "Evo- 
Nog Eorae TOU owparog Kai TOU aiparog Tov Kupiov. 29 Kpipva toPiew kai rive twit 
—iaxpivey To cHpa Tod Kupiov. 30 ’Acbeveic, sickly—iravoi, many .... Paul 
uses it in the sense of able, sufficient, 2 Cor. ii. 6.16; ili. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 2. 31 Ara- 
kpivew, to examine. 34 Atardccopat, to set in order, arrange .... Paul uses it for 
co nmand, Tit. 1. 5. 

XII. 3 "Ev wvetpart Osod Aadsiv—Riyew avabepa "Inooty—eireiy Kipioy 
"Inooty. 6 ’Evepyety ra mwavra iv waot.... Paul, évepyeiv ra wayra, Eph. i. 11. 
7 Pavipwowc Tov wvevparoc. 10 Araxpiceic, powers of distinguishing .... Paul, in 
a different sense, Rom. xiv. 1—yévy, kinds .... Paul uses yévoc for descent, lineage, 
Phil. ili. 5. 15 Eic ty cpa BarrioOijvar—eic ty mvetpa moriOjva.... Paul 
uses zoriZw no where except in a quotation from the Old Testament, Rom. xii. 20. 
Vs. 15—17. Where is any representation like this, in all the Pauline epistles? 
Paul introduces the same general image, in Rom. xii. 4, 5, as is founded in 1 Cor. 
xii. 12—145 but he does not pursue it into detail. 23 Tyujy mepuriBévar. 24 
Adéva tiyjy .... Paul, azodwWovar rysjv, Rom. ii. T—7d adbrd peomevgy. 26 
Médoc OofaZerar—ovyyaiow used absolutely, without any dative following it .... 
Paul employs the dative after it, Phil. ii. 17,18. 27 ’Ex pépove, Paul uses ard 
pipouvg, Rom. xi. 25; xv. 15. 24. 2 Cor. 1.135 ii. 5. 28 TiWévar tv 7H ex«Anoia, to 
constitute officers in the church. 28 Where else are such officers in the church men- 
tioned, as dv7anwec, KuBeovycerc, Ovvaperc? 

XII. 1 PAdooa ayyihwy. 2 Hideivy pusnopvov—éson peOcsavery. 3 Vopizew ra 
wrapyovra. 6 Dréyew, to cover over. 8 Toca ravoovra, the idea of speaking 
in a variety of languages, is not found attached to y\éaca, in any of the Pauline 
epistles. 12 Bdézey Oi todarpou .... tv aiviypatt .... Tpdcwmrov mpdG TPdcwrTaY 


—ywaoKew ik pipoug. 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 213 


XIV. 2 Mvedpare Aadeiv pushova. 3 Aarsiv otcodomjy .... TAPAKANOW 2... 
mapapvbiav. 5 Oixodopijy NaBeiv. 6 Aadeiv iy amrocahiWe, kT. 7 Owvyy 
dwWovar—Svacroryjy dwWova. 9 Eig atpa dadeiv. 10 Tuyxdvw, to happen, to be ; 
..-. Paul, in the sense of obtaining, 2 Tim. ii. 10. 11 Advapue, force of, in the 
sense of meaning—eivat BapBapdc rut. 14, 15 IpocetyecOar yoooy .. . TvEevpare 

.. voi— pare wvevdpaTe ... vot. 16 Evddoyety rp rvebmart. 19 Aadrety dia 
vooc. 20 TawWia yivecOat raig ppeci—raic ppeci rédevor yivecOat. 22 Eic onpsioy 
elvat »..~ Paul, onpetov tort, 2 Thess. ill. 17. 27 Kara vo, } rpeic. 32 Ived- 
para TpopyTay mpopyrate Uroraccerat. 33 ’Axaracraciag Oedc. 

XV. 1 Ad od [evayyediov] oolecOe. 3 Ev mowroc, first .... Paul, xpdroe, 
Rom. x. 19. 8 "Eoyaroy wavrwyv. 10 Eipi 6 ei. 14 Kevov eyovypa, xeva 
mioric. 15 Wevdopdorupec rod Osod. 17 Eivae év apapriac. 20 “Arapyy rév 


Kexouunpévoy. 21 Ai avOowmrov 6 Oavaroc .....- Paul, dud rij¢ apapriac 6 Gava- 





roc, Rom. v. 12. di dvOowrov avacracic verpiv. Vs. 24—28, a passage al- 
together sui generis. 29 BarriZopevor izio rév vexpiv. 38 Topa dwdvar. 40 
SGpa imiyewv. 42 UreipecOar tv POopd—iysinecOar tv apPapcia—oreioecOa iv 
aryia—iyeipecOar iv Oden, Kk. T. dX. 44 SOpa Poyurdy—obpa wvevparicdy. 47 
‘O debrepoc dvPow70c, 6 Kipwc t& obpavod. 49 Popsiv etkova. 50 Laps rai alpa, 
k. tT A. 51 Muornowy Eyew ...... Paul, puorijouyv dadreiv, Col. iv. 3. 52 
"Eoyarn oadryé. 53 Aci yap rd POaprov, «.7.X. 56 Kévrpoy Pavarov, 4 apap- 
ria~—dvvapuc apapriac, 6 vopocg. 57 Addvat vixoc. 

XVI. 2 Mia caBBarwv—riivar wap éavTg@. 7 Ev mapddy idsiv. 9 Odpa 
dviwye peyadn Kai évepync. 22 "Hrw avabewa, papdv a0d. 24 ‘H ayarn pov 
pera, x. tr. X. The whole closing salutation is sui generis. 


Such is the almost incredible mass of peculiar phraseology, in the 
first epistle to the Corinthians. It is possible that there may be in- 
stances, among so many, where I may, through the tedium of such an 
examination, have overlooked some phrase of the same kind in Paul’s 
other epistles. If this be so, the student, who has in his hands a Greek 
Concordance, will be able easily to detect it. In the mean time, | 
venture to affirm with entire confidence, (having repeated my investiga- 
tions a second time,) that the number of such mistakes, at most, is not 
sufficient to affect in any degree the nature of the argument, or the 
force of the appeal. I remark only, that where I have appealed to 
Paul, as not having employed a particular word or phrase, or as not 
using it in a like sense, I mean, of course, that Paul has not done this 
in his other acknowledged epistles. 

If any one is disposed to object to this array of phrases sui genervs, 
in the first epistle to the Corinthians, and to aver, that many of them 
are nearly like those used by Paul, and that others are occasioned by 
the peculiarity of the subjects of which the writer treats, and that, in 


214 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


general, they are collected with an unsparing hand; I have only to 
reply, that, in all respects, they are as fairly and as sparingly collected 
as those brought forward by Schulz and Seyffarth. For the correctness 
of this, I make the appeal to every unprejudiced man, who has read 
attentively and critically the essays of these authors, in which they 
have brought forward their objections against the genuineness of our 
epistle. 

As a counterpart for the appalling list of one hundred and eighteen 
dias Neyopueva, in the epistle to the Hebrews, which Seyffarth has pre- 
sented, I offer, 


Il, The dag Xeydpeva, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, 


“Ayapoc, ayevijc, ayvwoia, ayopdlw, addravoc, adndoc, adjrwe, dong, alvpoc, 
aivtypa, akatakaduTroc, akoovbiw, axpacia, dkwy, adaddlw, apépysvoc, dpweraxi- 
yNTOC, auTetwy, ava, avaxpivw, avapynorc, avatwc, avatinc, avdpiZopat, avri- 
Antic, aTayw, areevOEpoc, aTEMLOTAOTWC, aTddELELC, ATOAO!wW, ATOPEPwW, APYUPOS, 
apoTtpiy, apTak, dppworoc, apxLTEKTwWY, aoOEVvéoTEpOC, AoTI)O, AoTAaTEW, aoynpovEw, 
aoynpwv, aTy.oc, dropoc, abdéw, abdbOc, abpwov, dpwvoc, dbuxoc. 

, ‘ , , , 

Bpdxoc, Bwwrtxdc, yada, yewpyloy, yoyyvcw, yoapparedeo, yuprnrevopar, devin, 
deizvoy, Oraipectc, Oidaxrog, deppnvevrac, deppnved, dudrep, Sovaywyéw, dpac- 
copat, éyKom, éyKourevopat, Eidwdetoy, eldwhd0urov, eicakodw, EkBacic, txyapita, 
ixdéyomar, exvigpw, ixmepdlw, eExTpwma, éeewvdc, evépynwa, Evvopoc, Evoxoc, 
ivtpom), tEaiow, iZeyeipw, tkeort, tEovowdlw, éopralw, imatvéw, eT1Badu, erOava- 
roc, érOupnric, émom@dopar, ixtroavTd, Eppnveia, EcomTpoV, ETEPOYAWOOOL, ELyEVIIC, 
ebawpiw, evmpdcedpoc, evonpoc, EboxnpoTiyN, ELEXHMwY, )XEW, the form 77w from 

, ‘ , , 0; , (erh ” 2 i, , + 40 , Xa 
cipl, Oarrw, Oéarpov, Onpiopaxéew, Ciw, tapa, ioxupdrepcc, KaDappa, Kaiw, Kaan, 
karakaiw, KaTakaNiTTOpal, KATAKEpAL, KATAOTOWYYULL, KATAXPdOpal, KEIpW, KEV- 

, , ’ , a woe , ~, . ~ , , 
rpov, Kapa, Kilapizu, KivOuvvevw, KAaW, KAGZW, KOKKOC, Kopi, Kopaw, Kopseyvupe, 
kosiocov, in the sense of the adverb better, vil. 38, kpithpiov, Krijvoc, KuPépynotc, 
kipBadov, Kupiaxog. 

; p 
AWaZw, oyia, AowWopéw, Aoidopoc, Avotc, paivopat, pakehNoy, paKkapiwrepoc, 
4 a , a ’ EX. , - A Ad Ul , 
parakde, papay dOd, piGoooc, pérer, METEXH, PNVIW, MOLXOC, HohVYW, MYPLOL, Pwpia, 
~ « « , wy 
vi}, Vvicoc, vnmialw, Evpdw, ddoOpevric, Swe, opirta, doaKic, doppnatc, ovai, ovdE- 
Tore, OVOETW, OVMEV, OVTW, OPErOC, TaLdioY, Tailw, TaYTAXOv, Tapayivopalt, Tapa- 
peévw, Tapapv0ia, Tapodoc, Tapokivopar, TacXa, TEdC, TEpLAyw, TEPLBOAALOY, TEpL- 
KaVappa, TEpLoooTEpOY, TEPLTIONM, MEPiPNMA, TENTEPEVOMAL, TYEVHATIKHC, Tosaivwr, 
Toimvyn, TOUA, TOPVEYW, TOPYVI}, TOTHPLOY, TOOTEOVEVW, TOOTKUYVEW, TOOPHTEDW, TTN- 

4 , , 1 er c 4 , , ~ cA , 
yoy, TuKTEVW, THEW, PaBdoG, PLT}, GadTilw, GEAYH, CiTOC, oTAdLOG, CVYYVEI, 
avykspavvupt, svonryric, cuppepifopar, cbupwvoc, ovvépyopat, cuvayw, cuvedew, 
suvnOeia, svoTidhw, sxoalw, Taypa, THONSC, ToivuY, TUTTH, dTEpaKBoC, LTNOETNC, 
« wap , - 4 , —p) , ” 4 , UJ [A = 
UTwTLalw, PirsvEtkoc, Pony, PuTevwW, YaKdG, YoiKdc, XOPTOS, xpnoTEVOPat, PevCopap 
tup, vuxtkoc, worepei. In the whole, 230 words. 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 215 


In order now to estimate the comparative force of the argument, 
from these a@raé Neydueva, we must take into the account the compa~ 
rative length of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and of our epistle. 
In the Bible lying before me, the former occupies thirteen pages, the 
latter ten; i. e. the former, in respect to length, is to the latter, as 
thirteen to ten. Now, in the epistle to the Hebrews are found one 
hundred and eighteen araé ANeydpueva, according to the reckoning of 
Seyffarth ; in the epistle to the Corinthians, if I have reckoned rightly, 
(1 have repeated, a second time, the whole examination,) there are 
two hundred and thirty. Consequently, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
the average number of daza& eydpeva is a little short of twelve to a 
page; while the average number in the first epistle to the Corinthians 
is (within a small fraction) eighteen to a page. 

Certain it is, then, that if the number of araé Xeyoueva in our 
epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, it must be more 
abundantly evident that Paul cannot have been the author of the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, which has a proportion of one-half more 
azaé Neyoueva than our epistle. 

Such is the basis of the arguments, so confidently adduced by Schulz 
and Seyffarth, and so much applauded and trusted in by many other 
critics. It has been often said by logicians, that ‘‘ what proves too 


” 


much, proves nothing.” This is well said; and applied to the case 
before us, it will show, at once, that the very same means used to 
overturn the opinion that Paul was the author of our epistle, would 
overturn the opinion that he wrote any other particular epistle, which 
is universally acknowledged as coming from his hand, 

But what shall we say, when, in addition to all the ara Aeyopeva of 
words, we reckon up the phrases of the same sort, which have been 
adduced above? Is not here a mass of evidence apparently overwhelm- 
ing? Surely, if the first epistle to the Corinthians had been anony- 
mous, the whole body of modern writers, who have attacked the Pauline 
origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, must have, with one unanimous 
voice, disclaimed the first epistle to the Corinthians as belonging to 
Paul. In all respects which have any reference to the number of 
peculiar phrases and words that are drat Aeyopeva, the first epistle 
to the Corinthians presents far stronger evidence of not being Pauline 
than our epistle does. 

So unsafe is this argument, although often produced and much relica 
upon, in respect to the important subject which we are examining ! 


216 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


How much easier, too, is it to make assertions at hazard, on a subject 
of this nature, than it is to go through with the excessive labour of 
verifying such assertions, by means of that great rectifier of wandering 
critics—a Greek Concordance? Had this been done, long ago, the 
world had been spared a great deal of useless labour, and literature 
the record of many a hasty conclusion, from premises unexamined and 
unestablished. 

But further, the argument against the genuineness of the first epistle 
to the Corinthians could be easily amplified, by appealing still farther 
to the same kind of arguments as are adduced against our epistle. 
For example, how easy to ask, ‘If the first epistle to the Corinthians 
be Paul's, how is it possible, that in so longa letter there is ao discussion 
of Paul’s favourite topics in which he was so deeply interested? How 
comes it about, that we have nothing about justification by faith, 
without the deeds of the law; nothing of the vanity and folly of Jewish 
rites and ceremonies; nothing which asserts the equal rights of Jews 
and Gentiles, and blames the Judaizing teachers and zealots who 
refused to acknowledge this? Where has Paul ever descanted, as here, 
on the subject of spiritual gifts; on the marriage relation, conditions, 
habits, and dress of women; on the Lord’s supper; on the support of 
preachers; on the comparative value of spiritual gifts, and of faith, 
hope, and love; and, above all, on the controverted and speculative 
questions of his time, respecting the manner in which the bodies of 
the saints would rise from their graves, when the last trumpet should 
sound? Where else has Paul, or any other sacred writer, intimated, 
that the regal power of the Messiah would cease after the day of judg- 
ment, and that he would be subjected to the Father? Is there any 
parallel to this epistle, either for matter or manner, in all the acknow- 
ledged writings of Paul ?” 

I might proceed still further, and collect a large number of favourite 
expressions, often repeated, in this epistle, but which seldom or never 
occur in the other Pauline epistles. Many such I have noticed, in the 
course of my investigations; many more than Dr. Schulz has been 
able to collect from the epistle to the Hebrews. And if the ¢wo epistles 
to the Corinthians were to be the subject of investigation, instead of 
the first only, the list of ara Neyoueva and arak oyfopeva, and of 
favourite idioms and peculiar ideas, might be swelled to an enormous 
catalogue. I have observed, as I feel quite well satisfied, more axa 
Asyopeva in the second epistle to the Corinthians in proportion to its 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 217 


Jength, than in the first; and quite as many peculiar phrases. Ina 
word, after such an investigation as I have been through, I am bold to say, 
that there is not a single epistle of Paul’s which may not be wrested from 
him, by arguments of the very same kind, as those by which the genu- 
inéness of our epistle is assailed, and in all respects of equal validity. 

Unfortunately for the cause of criticism, so just and obvious an 
investigation has not hitherto been entered upon. Most of those who 
have doubted the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews, have 
seemed to consider it as quite proper to make out from it all the 
specialities possible, and then to reason from them, without any fear 
of mistake. I have examined their arguments in detail, because I 
wished to show how many hasty and incorrect assertions have been 
brought forward as arguments. I have now exhibited the application 
of the principles, on which their whole argument stands, to one of Paul’s 
epistles, the genuineness of which no critic calls in question. The 
result is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken. 

“ But,” it will be asked, ‘‘can we never reason, in any case, from 
dissimilarity of language in different compositions, to different persons 
as authors?” No doubt we may, in some cases. But not unless the 
difference be greater than in the case before us. It has been shown 
above, how many striking traits of resemblance to the other letters of 
Paul there are in our epistle. While these remain, the discrepancy 
can never be made out to be great enough to build a sound argument 
upon it. If the question were to be asked, Whether the author of the 
epistle to the Romans could have written the first epistle of John? 
the answer would be easy, nay, almost absolutely certain, from internal 
evidence. But, after all the striking resemblances which can be shown 
between our epistle and Paul’s letters; after proving from actual 
examination, that the list of peculiarities, in one of his most conspicuous 
and acknowledged epistles, is much greater than in our epistle; after 
making all the reasonable abatements which must be made, from the 
peculiarity of the subjects which are discussed in our epistle, and of 
the condition of those to whom it was addressed ; after reflection upon 
the acknowledged fact, that every writer’s style is more or less altered 
by advancing age; by the circumstances of haste or leisure in which 
he writes ; by the topics themselves which he discusses; by the degree 
of excitement which he feels at the time; above all, taking into con- 
sideration the fact, that every writer who travels to many different 
countries, resides in many different places, and is conversant with a 


218 § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 


great variety of men and of dialects, is much more liable to change his 
style somewhat, than he who always resides in the same place, and is 
conversant with the same men and books; after taking, I say, ali 
these things into consideration, can any man have reasonable grounds 
to be satisfied, that the peculiarity of style and diction in our epistle 
is such, that its Pauline origin is to be rejected on account of them ? 
I will not undertake to answer for others; but for myself, I can say 
with a clear and an abiding conviction, I do not feel that such an 
argument can stand before the impartial tribunal of criticism. 


§ 30. Objections by De Wette. 


While the preceding sheet was under the press, the Historical and 
Critical Introduction to the New Testament, by W. M. L. De Wette, 
came to hand. It was published at Berlin, during the last year; and 
exhibits the views of its celebrated author, in regard to the origin of 
our epistle. 

De Wette is the well-known author of a commentary on the Psalms, 
of a translation of about one-half of the Old and New Testaments, of 
a Hebrew Archeology, of an historical and critical Introduction to the 
Old Testament, and of some other works in the departments of sacred 
criticism and moral science; all of which have attracted great attention 
on the continent of Europe, on account of the distinguished genius and 
extensive erudition of the author. He is now a Professor, in the Uni- 
versity of Basle, in Switzerland. 

De Wette takes side, as from his habits of thinking and reasoning 
he might be expected to do, with those who deny the Pauline origin 
of our epistle. His arguments are very brief, (as the nature of his 
book required them to be;) and I am nota little surprised to find, 
that, among them all, there is not a single one which is not drawn from 
the works that have been already examined above. 

In regard to the external evidence, he has given many of the principal 
citations, which are adduced in the preceding part of this discussion, 
pp. 79—112. But some important ones he has omitted, which speak 
most unequivocally against the views he gives of the opinion of the 
fathers. For example, he merely refers to Euseb. Ecc. Hist. vi. 25, in 
respect to the very important testimony of Origen, which the reader will 
find on p. 89 seq. above; simply remarking that ‘‘ Origen gives up the 
writing down of the epistle by Paul, and only attributes the matter of it 
to him,” (p. 285.) In a note, he subjoins, ‘¢ When he [Origen] speaks 


§ 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 219 


of the tradition of the churches, it is probable that he means only the 
Alexandrine church.” . In regard to such a probability, I must refer the 
reader to what is said above, p. 95.(7.) The probability is very strong, 
that all of Origen’s homilies must have been published in Palestine ; for 
he was licensed to preach but a few months before he was driven from 
- Alexandria; see Lardner’s Credib. iii. 194. Whether Origen would, 
under such circumstances, be likely to retain any superstitious veneration 
for the church at Alexandria, every reader will be able to judge, so as to 
satisfy his own mind. It will be remembered, that the testimony in 
question of Origen, is from one of his Homilies on the epistle to the 
Hebrews. 

In the same manner, he has merely made a simple reference to the 
important testimony of Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, cited above, 
p- 108; while he has inserted at full length all the passages which might 
serve to show that Jerome had doubts in his own mind, in regard to the 
Pauline origin of our epistle. This he avers to have been the fact. But 
whether there is any just foundation for such an assertion, has already 
been examined above, p. 108 seq. Jerome, no doubt, felt himself 
obliged to use great caution, in regard to the manner in which he spoke 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, because the prevailing sentiment of the 
western churches, in his time, was against the Pauline origin of it. 
More than this can never be fairly deduced, from any of the language 
which he employs. The passages in his epistle to Dardanus, in his com- 
mentary on Matt. xxvi., and in his book De Viris Illustribus ec. v. 
(supra, pp. 108, 109,) can never be made to speak less than a decided, 
definite opinion, on the part of Jerome himself, in respect to the Pauline 
origin of our epistle. How should he have been the occasion of revolu- 
tionizing the whole of the western churches, in regard to the sentiment 
under consideration, if this were not the case ? 

Other testimonies, too, De Wette has omitted, which are in favour of 
the Pauline origin of our epistle. In stating the opposition of the Latin 
churches to this sentiment, he has brought forward the doubts of Jerome, 
and of his contemporaries. He has followed these on, down to the 
seventh century, by quoting from Primasius and Isidore Hispaliensis. 
But he has not once hinted, that in this same western church, all those 
distinguished bishops who are mentioned above (p. 108,) admitted our 
epistle to be Paul’s; excepting that he has adduced some of the testi- 
mony of Jerome and Augustine. 

Besides, he has advanced the broad position, that ‘‘ the western 


220 . § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 


churches originally (anfanglich) denied this epistle to be Paul’s.” The 
passages adduced in proof of this, are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. vi. 20, cited 
above, p. 97;) v. 26, (supra p. 102;) the passages from Photius, 
Gobar, and Hippolytus, (supra p. 102;) Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 20, 
(supra p. 106 seq.;) Cyprian, de Martyr. c. xi., (supra p. 106;) Jerome, 
Epist. ad Paulinum, (supra p. 109;) and Philastrius, de Heres, c. 89, 
who speaks only of the opinion of others, himself believing the epistle to 
be Paul’s. But De Wette has not said a word, in this connexion, of all 
the evidence adduced in § 12 above, which has relation to this subject ; nor 
of the division of opinion that existed in the Latin churches of later times, 
and before the days of Jerome, in respect to the subject in question. 

Again, in stating the testimony of the eastern churches, De Wette has 
merely brought forward Eusebius, as testifying to the opinions of his 
own times; see Eusebius’ testimony above, p. 96 seq. At the same 
time, he intimates that there were doubts, in that part of the church, in 
regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. He has not, however, produced 
a single author from the East who has expressed any such doubts, (and 
this for a very imperious reason ;) while, at the same time, he has sedu- 
lously omitted all those, cited on p. 101 above, who undoubtedly 
ascribed our epistle to Paul. 

Is this, now, an ¢mpartial examination and statement of evidence, on 
this great question? And has an author, who writes in this hasty 
manner, without extended examination, and without deliberation, any 
right to find fault with others, when they refuse to receive his allegations 
with implicit credit, and betake themselves to such an examination as 
may detect imperfect representation and statements evidently dictated 
by partiality ? 

Next, as to the internal grounds of proof that our epistle does not 
belong to Paul. 

These are, without exception, the same as had been before advanced 
by Eichhorn, Ziegler, Bertholdt, Schulz, and Seyffarth; all of which 
have been examined in the preceding pages. De Wette states, very 
categorically, that the language of our epistle is very different from that 
of Paul; and he appeals to Schulz as having most fully shown this, in 
the work which has been already examined. How far the case is as 
Schulz has represented it, must now be left to the reader to judge for 
himself. 

What most of all surprises me, is, that De Wette should produce, as 
special proof of the alleged discrepancy of style, the formulas of quo- 


§ 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 221 


tation, examined p. 176 seq. (18.) above; and also the appellations 
given to the Saviour by the writer of our epistle, examined in p. 182 seq. 
(19.) above; two of the most unlucky of all the arguments which Schulz 
and Seyffarth have adduced. It requires, indeed, a great deal of 
patience and labour to examine this matter to the bottom ; more, I am 
quite inclined from bitter experience to believe, than De Wette consumed 
in writing the whole of the article in his Introduction, which has respect 
to our epistle. 

Besides these two cases of diversity of style, De Wette has proceeded 
to cite a large list of words; all of which are taken from Schulz and 
Seyffarth, and have already been the subject of particular examination. 
With an adventurous step, and without even opening his Greek Concor- 
dance for investigation, he has followed his leaders in this hazardous 
path, and even selected the words examined above, on p. 197 (34.,) 
p- 198 (37.,) not omitting the most unfortunate of all Dr. Schulz’s 
guesses, viz. the phrases on p. 199 (40.,) above. The word ziszc, too, 
has come in for its usual share of discrepancy, (see above, p. 159, e,) 
and also BaotXeia Tov Ocov and redeiwore. 

He avers, moreover, after Schulz, that the comparison and symbolical 
use of the Old Testament passages and ordinances, is foreign to the 
manner of Paul, and like to that of Philo. (See on this subject p. 131 
seq. (3.) above.) He asserts, too, that Paul could not have represented 
Christianity so correspondent with Judaism, nor Christ as high priest; 
nor would he have been silent about his office of apostle to the heathen, 
nor concealed the fact, that the Christian religion was designed as well 
for Gentiles as Jews. 

Yet, how many of Paul’s epistles there are, in which these topics are 
not insisted on, and which De Wette himself does not suppose to be 
spurious, he does not seem once to have thought of. How is it possible 
that such a writer as Paul should be limited to one circle of objects, and 
reasoning, and expression? De Wette would not like to have the 
genuineness of his own works tried by such a rule of scrutiny. 

On the question, To whom was our epistle directed? De Wette has 
exhibited a singular method of treating the subject. He endeavours to 
present difficulties that lie in the way of supposing that it was directed 
to any church; and then comes to the conclusion, that probably it was 
not originally an epzstle, but the composition of some companion of 
Paul, who added the personal allusions toward the close of the letter, for 
the sake of giving credit to it as a composition of the apostle ; so that all 


222 § 51. OBJECTIONS BY DE BOEHME. 


investigation about either the author of the epistle, or the persons to 
whom it is directed, is in vain and useless, pp. 292—294. It seens 
after all, then, that the author of our epistle is a dissembler and dis- 
honest man; aiming to stand upon the credit of Paul, because he fears 
that his own credit is insufficient. But can any candid reader of our 
epistle refuse to see the unequivocal marks of sincerity, candour, high- 
raised benevolent feeling, and spiritual comprehensive views, every where 
exhibited? I repeat it, had the writer of such a piece any need of prop- 
ping up himself, by the aid of even Paul’s name and authority? Then 
how futile, nay foolish, the attempt to do so, if his style, diction, manner, 
reasoning, quotations, circle of thought—in a word, every thing—is so 
toto celo diverse from that of Paul, as Schulz, Seyffarth, and De Wette 
represent it! Where were the eyes and understandings of the readers ? 
Could they not detect the imposture? And then what would become of 
the epistle, and of the reputation of the man who wrote it? One ought 
to have better reasons than these, to abandon the convictions which a 
thorough investigation will force upon him. 


§ 31. Objections by Boehme. 


The work of De Wette, noticed in the preceding section, was accom- 
panied by a recent work of C. F. Boehme, comprised in a volume of 
about 800 pages; which contains an introduction to our epistle, and a 
translation of the same, followed by a copious commentary. Of the 
author little is known in this country, and, if I may judge by such 
reviews of books in Germany as I have perused, little is said in his own 
country respecting him. The work was printed at Leipsic in 1825. 

Like the critics whose works have been examined in the preceding 
sections, Boehme sets out with the most unqualified assertions respecting 
the discrepancies of style and manner, between the author of our epistle, 
and all the other writers of the New Testament. He asserts, that ‘ as 
to the form and method of his work, the rhetorical construction of it, 
and the constant and accurate observance of order, our author far excels 
the other contemporary sacred writers.” He extols the art which the 
writer of our epistle uses, in order to persuade those whom he addressed 
to follow his advice ; in particular, he gives as examples of this, 
Heb. iii. 7—iv. 13, where the writer very dexterously, as he says, turns 
the promise of rest in the land of Canaan, into a promise of rest in the 
heavenly world; to which he adds Heb. xi. 8—16, where, he avers, that 
“ the author by the aid of his rhetorical art, and contra fidem historia, 


i aS as ee 


* 
§ 31. OBJECTIONS BY BOEHME. 223 


has rendered it aliquatenus probabile, that Abraham and the other 
patriarchs had a spiritual rest in view.” 

With many other eulogies he loads the author of our epistle, on 
account of his art, his eloquence, and his excellent Greek ; and from all 
this, (as was to be anticipated,) he comes to the conclusion, that the 
author could not be Paul, nor any of the other writers of the New Testa- 
ment, being far superior to them all. 

Into the historieal and critical examination of this question, however, 
he does not even pretend to go. He avers, that to do so would be merely 
agere actum. "le considers the works of Schulz, Seyffarth, and Ziegler, 
as having finaily settled the question, beyond any hope of retrieve by 
those who advocate the Pauline origin of our epistle; and after appeal- 
ing to the authors just named, and to the considerations which he has 
himself suggested, in respect to the discrepancies of style and manner 
between the author and Paul, he concludes by saying, ‘‘ that Paul was 
not the author, satis swperque demonstratum est, a nobis aliisque.” 

This is indeed a summary method of despatching a question of this 
nature ; certainly it is a method, which spares writers and readers a great 
deal of severe labour and study. Unfortunately, however, for all these 
rhetorical appeals to the mere feelings and imagination of men, there are 
some, at least, who believe in the Pauline origin of our epistle, that are 
too @Adrovoe to shrink from bringing the whole matter to the test of 
actual investigation, and who will insist upon it, that those who make 
assertions are bound in duty to prove them. 

The work of Boehme, under examination, is not one which bids fair to 
bring any accession of strength to the cause of those who deny the 
Pauline origin of our epistle ; and all which I could wish to say respect- 
ing his suggestions, has been already said in the preceding pages. 

I cannot deny, however, that he has exhibited something new in his 
book. He has endeavoured to show, that Silas, or Silvanus, was the 
author of our epistle, and that it was directed to the church at Antioch ; 
conjectures, which not only have not a single voice of ancient testimony 
in their favour, but which are destitute of any circumstances that render 
them even in a slight degree probable. I cannot help thinking of 
Boehme’s introduction to his work, much as one of his countrymen 
thinks of a certain author, who has made some noise of late in the 
medical world: ‘‘ He has some new things, and some true things; but 
his new things are not true things, and his true things are not new 
things.”’ 


224 § 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


§ 32. Hebraisms of the Epistle. 


All the writers, who have declared against the Pauline origin of our 
epistle, have appealed to Origen’s declaration, ’A\\a ésly f éxtsod) 
ovvOece rij¢ A€Lewe “EXAnvikwrépa, the epistle [to the Hebrews] in the 
texture of its style is more conformed to the Greek idiom, [than the 
epistles of Paul]. Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Ziegler, Schulz, Seyffarth, De 
Wette, Boehme, and others, have one and all urged this consideration, 
and insisted upon it, that Origen’s judgment, on this point, must be 
considered as decisive. 

In respect to the general principles of criticism, which are to regulate 
our investigation of such a matter, I have already said all which I wish 
to say, p. 215 seq. (4.) The actual comparison of our epistle with the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul has also been made, pp. 173—209 above. 
It may, however, be of some importance to add, in this place, a list of 
some of the Hebraisms which occur in our epistle, in order to meet the 
very categorical assertion of De Wette and Boehme, that ‘ the style of 
our epistle is not only very different from that of Paul, but he composes 
in purer Greek, and with a far more oratorical diction.” 


Words and phrases used in a Hebraistic sense, or in a way different from what is usual 
in the Greek classics. 


Cuap. I. 1 Tazpdor, ancestors of old time, MAK. Seldom or 
never does classical Greek so employ this word. °Em’ éoyarov roy fype- 
par, the time of the Messiah, the last age of the world, DYD"T DIN ; 
purely Hebrew. 2 KAnpordpoc, lord, ruler, WI; in classic. Greek, one 
who takes by lot or by testament. 3 Adéa, splendor, brightness, radi- 
ance, p=) ; in Greek, opinion, sentiment, maxim, fame, honour. 
‘Yroordsewc avtov, of his substance, 1. e. of himself, JONy, Ww 
Kaapiopov ...+ TH apapri@y, expiration for sin, DYDD, (Sept. caba- 
ptopoc, Exod. xxix. 36; xxx. 10;) see Comm. in loc. Meyadwotrn, 
majesty, excellence, IVY TN, 73; not found in the classics. "Ev tote, 
on heaven, in the world above, oa, Sept. év tYndotc. 4 KexAnpovo- 
pncey, obtained, WI; Greek, to acquire by lot, to inherit. Same word 
in i. 14, ‘ 

I omit purposely all the quotations which follow here, and all through- 
out the epistle, which are made from the ancient Scriptures ; because, 
as they were doubtless made, in general, from the Septuagint version, 
they cannot be justly considered as properly belonging to the style of 


i 


& 32, HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 225 


our author. If the Hebraisms in all these quotations were to be added 
to the list of those in the rest of the epistle, it would make it to appear 
something very different from ‘EAAnKcwrépa. Whether Origen did, or 
did not, mean to exclude them, no one, so far as I know, has yet 
attempted to show. 

II. 2 Adyoc, commznation, command, or revelation, aT ; not so in the 
classics. 3 Lwrnpiac, the Christian religion with its threats and pro- 
muses ; certainly not a classical sense of the word. 4 Auvdpeot, mira- 
culous powers, miracles, 13, y, MAN2D3, all of which the Septuagint 
translate by dvvapue ; in nen classics, not so. OéAnow, a word unknown to 
che Attics. 5 Oixoupévny péddovcayr, the gospel dispensation, N20 DIT 
purely Jewish. 10 Adéav, future happiness, a glorious condi- 
tion in another world; peculiar to Helenistic Greek. 11 ‘AyidZwv 
and dy.agdpevor, making atonement for, and, those for whom atone- 
ment is made, or, who are expiated, UIP and Hd are both rendered by 
dyagw in the Septuagint ; in the classics, d&y.dZw means to consecrate, 
to make or declare sacred. ’Adedgove, socios, amicos, ejusdem nature 
participes, DTN ; classics, either children of the same parents, or near 
relatives, kindred by descent. 12 ’Ex«Anola, public religious assembly, 
20D» MSY, NP ; classics, public civil assembly. 14 Lapkdc cai aipa- 
Toe, human nature, corporeal state or condition, Wa, DI=W5), see 
Gen. ix. 4, and in the New Testament, 1 Cor. xv. 50. Matt. xvi. 17. 
Gal. i. 16. al.; not so used in the classics. Kazapyjjay, to destroy, to 
render null or inefficacious ; classics, to be idle, to remain sluggish or 
inactive. AcdPodrorv, Satan, WOW, the devil ; classics, a slanderer, an 
accuser. 16 ’Ayyédoyv, angels, "heavenly messengers, DYDNID ; ; in the 
classics, éyyekog means messenger, or message. Spee progeny, 
offspring, YN, frequent in the New Testament, and three times in our 
epistle ; rarely, if ever, has it this sense among the classics. The fre- 
quency of it is Hellenistic. 

III. 1 ’Adedgol &yinr, DWITP, Ps. xvi. 3 et seepe, professed people of 
God, worshippers of God ; in a sense different from the aye of the 
classics. KAjjcewe éxovpaviov, invitations or privileges of the gospel ; 
no parallel in common Greek. ’Azdéorodor Kat apxuepéa Tijg Opodoyiac 5 
such a combination is utterly foreign to the classics. 2 O%xw in the sense 
of worshippers of God, the assembly of the faithful, D2, DTN rs 
peculiar to Hellenistic Greek. So 13 Ka? éxdorny typépay, Di bo, 
continually, constantly. xynpivw, PHT. TWP, applied to the heart 
or mind; literally used only in the classics. 16 Maperixpavar, m7 

Q 


226 HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


77D, not of classic usage. 17 Ipoowyx6ide, DIP; not a classic word. 
Apaprijcact, DSO, sinners, violators of divine precepts ; classic usage, 
to miss the mark, to fail, &c.; the sense of sinners or offenders, as in 
our epistle, is seldom and doubtful in the classics. Kéda, carcases 
corpses, ov5 ; ; in common Greek, members, limbs. 18 Kardazavow 
nmmyd, rest, "future rest or happiness ; Greek, a causing of rest, stilling, 
quieting. 

IV. 2 Ebayyedcopévor, WA, used here in a more apaseaniethite and pecu- 
liar sense than in the classics. ‘O déOyoe rife akojfe, yidw, myNIW, found 
in Paul, 1 Thess. ii. 13; the words are classic, but the combination is 
altogether diverse from any in the classics. 12 Zéy, perpetual, endur- 
ing, or active, TT, as in YT ON ; not in the classics. 13 Oix .... Kriote, 
by nd, Greek ovdév, no creature, nothing ; «rior, in the classics, means, 
the act of creating. 14 Oivpavovc, DYIY, the Hebrew idea of the fir- 
mament above. ‘Opodroyiac, religion, professed subjection to Christ, 
Sept. for V3, votum. 15 ’Acdeveiac, moral weaknesses, Sept. for 
Siwon stumbling, and yoy claudicatio ; classics, physical weakness, 
with various shades. 16 Opdyog tiie xaprroc, without a parallel in the 
classics. 

V. 3 Ipocpéperv, to offer gifts and sacrifices to God, APT, DW, 
N77; in Greek, not appropriate to this sacred rite. 7 Eisaxovabeic, 
delivered, saved, Sept. for PWT, MY. 12 Ta ororxeia rife apxiic tov 
Aoyiwy ; such an expression is wanting in the classics. Tddakroc .. + 
rpopic, not a classical metaphor. 13 Adyou duacivne, Chrostian or 
religious doctrine ; without an example in the classics. 

VI. 1 Nexpév épywy deadly, destructive works, DN JT occidere, 
Septuagint, vexpoc. 2 Barriopoy dwayiic, éxOéoene - te xe—porv, foreign 
to the classics ; as is kpiparoc aiwviov. 4 Ivevparoc dyiov, WITT NT 5 
an expression and an idea foreign to all the classics. 5 Kadov a ‘ ihe 
promise of good, so AW TAT often in Hebrew; classics, declaration, 
any thing uttered. Avvdpere péddovroc aidvoc, miraculous powers under 
the gospel dispensation; an utter stranger to the classic authors. 

Bordayny, any kind of fruit which the earth produces, AWY; in Greek, 
simply herbage, vegetation. 10 Eic 70 dvopa airov, toward him, toward 
his cause, for his sake, (row,) ovopna being pleonastic, as in Hebrew. 
12 Makpobupiac, patient waiting, MDX, prolongatio, Sept.; which I 
cannot find in the classics. Tic érayyediac, the promised blessing ; 
classic sense, promise. 

VII. 1 Ge0d trfiorov, Woy ; the words are classic Greek, but the 


§ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 227 


combination is Hebrew. Korijc, slaughter, MDD; Greek, hewing, cut- 
ting out. 3 ’Ardrwp, aphrwp, without any genealogy of parents ; the 
classic writers apply these words to their gods, and to orphan children, 
in quite a different sense, 4 ’AxpoO.viwy, spoils in general, (see Gen. 
xiv. 20) classics, first fruits, part of the spoils of war presented to the 
gods. Iarprapxne, NANT WN; I cannot find any trace of this word 
in the classics. 5 ’Arodexaréw, to tithe, to take a tenth part, WY s 

peculiar to Hebrew Greek.  EéeAn\uOdrac ee rife dapvoc, ’ABpacp, 
Dy oT Oxy’ ; the Greeks said, yevyac0a td revoc, in such a case, 
so that the above expression is purely Hebrew. 6 Ackardw, as drotexa- 
row inv. 5. 10’Ev rh doin tov warpdc, see above on v. 5. 11 Tedelware, 
in a sense suz generis. 16 Lapxixijc, perishable, short-lived, Wa ; not 
found in the classics in such a sense. 20 ‘Opxwpociac, peculiar to our 
epistle ; the classic opxwpdova (with antepenult accent) is an adjective, 
iepa being understood after it. 22 Acafjxne, in the sense of the 
Hebrew "2. 

MiITI: 2 "Ayiwy, plur., DWIP WIP ; classics, &ywv. Xxnvijc, the 
divine Sa, IDD ; classics, a common tent or dwelling. 6 Meairne, in 
a different sense from what is usual in the classics. The long quotation 
from the Septuagint that follows, is not more Hebraistic than the sur- 
rounding context. 

IX. 1 Atcawpara, ordinances, arrangements, Daw ; classics, 
sentence of justice, decision, just action or requisition. 5 ‘I\aorijpior, 
nbd, Septuagint word ; classics, itasriptoe -ia, -ov, adjective. 9 Ma- 
paory, symbol ; classics, comparison, similitude in speech or writing. 
11 ’Apytepede peddrOvrwy aya0ey, unlike any thing in the classics. 
12 Tavrne rite Kricewce, of the present world; xriove in the classics, 
means, the act of creating. Etpdpevoc, form sui generis. 13 Kexor- 
vwpevoue, the unclean, pon, pron ; Greek xowdw to communicate, to 
share, to render common. ‘Aydider, purifies, WA); Greek, to conse- 
crate, to devote. 16 @pec8ac accidere, to happen; it is sui generis. 
18 ’Eyxekaiviorar, was ratified ; classics, to renew. 22 Aiparexyvoiac, 
_ sui generis. 26 KaraPodjjc Koopov, a combination unknown to the 
classics. vvredeia tHv aiwvwr, the end of the former dispensation ; no 
where in common Greek. 28 ‘Apapriac, sin-offering, sacrifice for sin, 
DNOM OWN; not in the classics. 

x. 1 Bedacs complete image, perfect delineation, (in distinction from 
oxwx, an imperfect sketch,) MAD; the Greek eixwy is simply, image. 
TeXcr@oar, in a More pregnant ae than any classic usage gives to it, 

Q 


205 HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLES. 


13 TeOGow of éx@poi abrot trordcioy rév Trodwy avrov, a phrase purely 
Hebraistic in its hue; see Ps. ex. 1. [2.] 20 Zécay, qualifying such a 
word as 6doy, is a combination unknown to the classics. 22 ’Epparrie- 
pévot Tac Kapdiae, altogether Hebrew in its hue. 25 ‘Hyépa, the day of 
the Lord, the day of terror, DY, mm Di, altogether in a Hebrew 
sense. 27 Ilupdc ZijXoc, 8 17, exactly Hebrew. 29 Kowodv, an unclean 
thing ; see under ix. 13. 32”A0Anow... rabnparwy, amethod of expres- 
sion foreign to the classics. 35 Mappnotar, confidence, Christian trust ; clas- 
sics, boldness or freedom of speech. McoOarodociay, reward ; sui generis. 

XI. 3 Aidvac, worlds, oy, entirely Jewish. ‘Pyare, 
command, 7; TR ; Greek, saying, thing said. 5 "Ideivy Oavaror, 
D2 TN, nw FIND. Ovx evpioxero, AYN; foreign to the classics. 
6 mpeaneorrye 1 cannot find in classic Greek. 7 Koéopor, the ungodly, 
the world who were sinful; not of classic usage. Acxatoobyne, justi- 
Sying, of justification ; classics, equity, uprightness. 9 LuyKAnpovopwr, 
joint-possessors; foreign, in this sense, to common Greek. 19 *Ey zapa- 
fod, peculiar method of expression. 34 Urduara jraxaipac, the edge 
of the sword, 21115, unknown to the classic authors. 37 Ev g0vo 
paxatpac, with the murderous sword, a Hebrew combination. 

XII. 6 Macever, chastises, WD, and ver. 7 waceiay, chastesement, 
WD : the meanings here given to these two words are seldom, if ever, 
given in the classics. 9 Tije capxdc iypov mwarépac, a Hebrew, not a 
classic combination of ideas; oapxdc meaning the physecal man, in 
distinction from the mental one. To warpi roy rvevparwy: Hebrew, 
wa 222 nin TORN, Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16; foreign to all the 
classics. 10 ae eoprocs can hardly be found, I believe, in the classics. 
It is a Hellenistic term, corresponding to wip. 11 Kaozoy eipnytkoy, 
peaceful fruit, i. e. happy fruit, 5 Diu elonvexoy here manifestly 
bearing the Hebrew- Greek, and not the eleeeie sense. 14 Oddete bWerae 
roy Kipwoy, so TINY ND THT DN AND NY MM; the whole form 
of expression is manifestly Hebraistic. 16 Beata flac, one meal ; 
classics, the act of eating, or food. The certainty that meal is the idea 
here, arises from the adjunct pude. Towrordxia, Heb. m2 ; not used 
in the classics. 19 Mi rpooreOivat avroic Ndyor, TY Tel nba 727), 
a Hebrew and not a Greek mode of expression. 22 Mupidor, 127, nia, 
the usual Hebrew expression for a large indefinite number; the Latins 
said, sexcent?. 23 ’Aroyeypappévwr év ovparvote, om Awan 59, Is. 
iy.3. Comp. Ex. xxxii.32. Ps. Ixix. 28> Dan? xin 1. ake x. 20% 
&c. An expression altogether Hebraistic. 


Ree ee 


5 


HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 229 


XIII. 3” Ovrec ev oopari, ina frail dying state ; not so expressed in 
the classics. The mode of expression comes from the Hebrew, Wwa. 
7 ‘Hyoupévwy, teachers, spiritual guides, A DN ITD; classic sense 
never that of teachers. 8 XOéc Kal ofjpepor, DT) Shome ; where, in 
all the classics, is the like of this, in order to designate ‘all past and 
present time? 15 Ovoiay aivécewe «++. Kaptov yettéwy; the idea of 
sacrifice of praise, is Hebrew, Lev. vil. 12, THAT Tt, comp. Ps. 1. 14. 
23. As to képroy xeAéwy, there is nothing in the classics like it. Plainly 
it has its original in the Hebrew, IN5w D5 mw, Hos. xiv. 3, we 
will render to thee the calves [i. e. the ‘offering, the fruit] of our lips, 
or rather, we will render to thee calves with our lips. 16 Ovoiate, as 
applied to evrotiac kat kowvwyviae, is purely a Hebrew application. 17 ‘Yzép 
tov Wuxor vpoy, for you, pI W527 ; the Greeks, imép bpar. 


In this selection, I have aimed at taking only the more obvious words and 
phrases. It might be much enlarged, by more strenuously urging the prin- 
ciple, in all respects, of dissimilarity to the Greek classic writers. That 
an idea is peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and unknown to the 
classic authors, has not been the basis of my selection in any case, unless 
at the same time there is a phraseology, which is as foreign to the Greeks 
as the idea itself. If all the zdeas which are not classical, were to be 
the guiding principle in our selection, there would be no end of examples. 
But this would not be a fair and proper method of proceeding. It is the 
diction, and phraseology, and the sense which is given to the words em- 
ployed, that are asserted to be ‘E\Anvixwrepa. In this shape have I 
endeavoured to meet the thing; and the reader has the result before him. 

With such a result in view, what matters it, whether De Wette, Schulz, 
Seyffarth, or even Origen himself, tells us that our epistle is almost 
classical Greek, and that all runs smoothly and oratorically on? As 
to this last assertion, I have only to ask, that those who make it would 
translate and explain Heb. ii. 9, 10.; il. 3, 4.15; iv. 3—9; v. 5. 
D9 =) wie gli 2p vile, 1—3. 8, 9..15, 16; ix. 9, 10, 15—17. 27; 28% 
x. 5—9. 20; xi. 3. 39,40; xii. 18 —24. 27, 28; xii. 7—9. 1I—13; 
to which I might easily add many other passages. If they will find 
Greek more elliptical, more involved, more intricate and dark, in all the 
epistles of Paul, I will thank them for the discovery.—I must add, also, 
that the list of Hebraisms and unclassical usage, in our epistle, would 
have been much more swelled, if I had not omitted to repeat the same 
words, so often as I found them repeated and used in a Hebraistic or 


230 § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 


in a Hebraistic or unclassical manner. Such words are adedpoc, aytog 
ayiagw, duapria, acbévera, duxaiwya, éyxawilw, érayyedia, Kab’ jpépay, 
KAnpovdpoc, KAnpovonéw, KaTaravatc, NOyos Apxijc, puclarocogia, peyahw- 
ovyn, peoitnc, veKxpoc, olkoc, capt, redecdw, and others. 

I make the appeal now with boldness, and call upon those who 
assert the almost classic style and manner of our epistle, to produce 
more true Hebraisms, and more idioms foreign to the Greek classics, 
in any of Paul’s acknowledged epistles. I will even venture to make 
another offer; which is, that I will show that some at least of his 
acknowledged epistles exhibit less Hebrew colouring, when they shall 
have shown that some of them exhibit more. 

It does not signify to beat the air, in this contest. Assertions are 
one thing; facts are another. If Origen and all the Greek fathers 
were to assert, that our epistle is E\Anvuwrepa than Paul’s, it could 


, 


not make it so. ‘‘To the work of examination,’ would be my reply. 
Let every critic go to this work, for himself, if he knows enough of 
Hebrew idiom to do it: and the result will be an abiding conviction, 
that Origen had as little reason for the assertion in question, as he had 
for the adventurous remark which he has made, on the use of the Greek 
article by the sacred writers. Origen’s assertion, and every other man’s, 
on this subject, can be brought to the test; and he who subjects them 
to this process, | am persuaded, will find himself brought, at last, if he 
will examine zmpartially and fully, to a firm conviction that they are 


mere assertions, and nothing more. 
§ 33. Alexandrine hue of the Epistle. 


Eichhorn, who has so strenuously insisted that Paul is not the 
author of our epistle, has endeavoured to show, that it is probably of 
Alexandrine origin. But the arguments which he adduces for this 
purpose, seem to me incapable of standing the test of a critical exami- 
nation. 

(1.) “The author of the epistle to the Hebrews treats the ancient 
Jewish Scriptures as containing a mysterious and secret sense, concealed 
under the words. He also regards the various ritual observances of 
the ancient law, only as types and shadows of things under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, Heb. x. 1; ix. 8. Philo of Alexandria expresses 
the same views, De confus. Ling. p. 348.” Eichh. Einleit. p. 442. 

That the general views of the author of our epistle in regard to the 


§ 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE, 231 


meaning and object of Jewish rites coincided with those of Philo, 
I should not be at all disposed to deny. But who is going to show us, 
that these were not founded in truth? If, as I believe, the Jewish 
dispensation had its origin in divine communications and directions, 
there can be no rational doubt that it had some important end in view. 
Surely, now, the sacrifices and various rites of external purification 
could never, in and of themselves, be deemed an object worthy of 
special divine interposition and command. Their connexion with some 
higher and more spiritual object and end, was what stamped their 
highest real value upon them. In any cther point of view, they could 
scarcely be thought worthy of the character of Him who requires men 
to worship him in spirit and in truth. 

That a man of such enlarged views as Philo, should have seen and 
felt this, and that Paul should have done the same, is not a matter 
of wonder to any one, who considers the tendency of an enlightened 
mind to look on the spiritual design of religion as infinitely the most 
important and interesting part of it. 

What can be more diverse, however, than the particular form which 
Philo gives to his speculations on this subject, and that in which the 
ideas of our author are developed? Philo allegorizes on every thing, 
and every where, almost without distinction. The historical facts in the 
book of Genesis, the connexion of Abraham with Sarah and Hagar, and 
all other occurrences related in the Pentateuch, are, if occasion presents 
an opportunity, converted into allegory, and made the theme of exube- 
rant speculative mysticism. Neither is there one word in all, which 
has any relation to the Messiah, or to his atoning sacrifice. 

How very different the types and shadows presented by our epistle 
are, the intelligent and critical reader need not be informed. All is 
brought to bear on one single point—the death of Christ, the propi- 
tiatory sacrifice for sin made by it, and the effectual reconciliation to 
God accomplished in this manner. 

To reason, then, as Eichhorn has done, is just the same, as to bring 
forward the allegation, that Philo believed in the existence of one 
supreme God: that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews did the 
same, and then draw the inference, that the writer of this epistle must 
therefore have lived, or at least been nurtured, at Alexandria. I ven- 
ture to say, that there never has been so rational an account of the 
object of the Jewish ritual, as the author of our epistle gives : nor one 
so worthy of the great Author of the old and the new dispensations, 


232 § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 


nor so consonant with the fundamental maxim, that ‘‘ God is a spirit, 
and requires men to worship him in a spiritual manner.” 

(2.) ‘Philo intimates, that the higher mysteries of the Jewish 
religion are only for the initiated, pisacc. In like manner our epistle, 
v.11; vi. 3.” Eijnleit. p. 444. 

I can find no trace of reserve in our epistle, in regard to the a&piarac, 
or uninitiated, The expression of deep regret, that those whom the 
writer addresses had not made higher acquisitions of religious know- 
ledge, I can easily find. Severe reproof for such negligence, I see ; 
but not a word about any distinctions between ptorac and dpvoror, 
initiated and uninitiated, am I able to discover. Philo, in respect to 
this, is more than half a Grecian Platonist; but the writer of our epistle 
practises no concealment at all. 

(3.) ‘*The Alexandrine author of the book of Wisdom has praised 
wisdom on account of its nature and qualities, and then adduced his- 
torical examples to illustrate all this, Wisd. 1—1x; x. 1; xvi. 1. So, 
the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, after urging and eulogizing 
faith, adduces historical examples of it, in chap. xi., in order more 
strongly to impress its importance.” p. 445. 

To which one may reply, that from the days of the author of our 
epistle, down to the present time, almost every practical writer on 
religion, and every preacher on the subject of faith, has done the same. 
But does this prove, that every such writer and preacher was born or 
nurtured at Alexandria? Can a thing, so obvious to the common sense of all 
men, as the appropriate method of treating a subject, be adduced, to estab- 
lish a special relation between any two men, as to country or education. 

(4.) ‘* Many thoughts and expressions, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
resemble those of Philo,” p. 446, seq. 

So Eichhorn, who has occupied several pages with detailing expres- 
sions which afford such resemblances. So Schulz, also, who has 
ocupied fourteen pages with alleged parallels of this nature, printed im 
opposite columns. I have examined all these with attention, and must 
confess, that the impression made upon me by them, is very different 
from that which Eichhorn and Schulz appear to have received. 

To any considerate man, who makes this examination, it will very 
naturally occur, that the author of our epistle and Philo were contem- 
poraries. At least, the former must have come upon the stage before 
the latter left it. Then, both were educated as Jews; both were deeply 
read in the Jewish Scriptures, above all, in the law of Moses. Both 


§ 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 233 


thought, reasoned, and expressed themselves as Hebrews, writing in 
Greek. Both had the same views, fundamentally, of the great points 
of the religion of Moses. Both had high moral feelings, and a deep 
interest in them. Could it be possible, now, that there should not be 
points of resemblance between Philo and our author, when writing on 
similar subjects! Surely not, any more than that there should not be 
points of similarity between the sentiments of a Christian divine in any 
particular age and country, and those of another, near the same age, in 
a different country. 

Both Philo and our author often appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. 
And because they deduce from them like sentiments, does this prove 
that our author must have been of the Alexandrine school? Why is not 
the argument just as good the other way, viz. to prove that Philo must 
have belonged to some other country, i. e. to that in which our author 
lived? All that such resemblance can prove is, that both belonged to 
the Mosaic school ; and who will deny this ? 

I may venture, however, to go farther, and to aver, that the dzssim- 
larity of style, between our epistle and the works of Philo, as they 
appear in the copious extracts made by Schulz, is so great, that one 
might almost as well think of proving an alliance between some heathen 
writer of Greek and our epistle, as between the latter and Philo. The 
moment Philo departs from his Septuagint text, he goes off to an idiom 
as different from that in our epistle, as can well be conceived of ina 
Hebrew, writing on moral subjects, and making the Old Testament the 
basis of his speculations. Every critical reader who inspects the parallels 
of Dr. Schulz can judge for himself of this; and to every such one the 
appeal is fearlessly made, in regard to the point in question. 

The writers whom I am now controverting, are indebted to J. B. 
Carpzoff, (Exercitt. Sac. in Paulli epist. ad Hebreeos, ex Philone Alex- 
andrino, Helmst. 1750,) for the materials, which they have wrought up 
into the form of an argument for the Alexandrine origin of our epistle. 
But they do not once seem to have reflected, that if the same iron dili- 
gence, which Carpzoff has exhibited in his work, had been applied to the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul, in the same way, as large a harvest of 
resemblances might have been gathered. In regard to allegory, for 
example, (which is a main point of alleged resemblance,) what could be 
more obvious, than to appeal to 1 Cor. x. 1—6; x. 11. Rom. v. 14. 
1 Cor. xv. 45—47. 2 Cor. iii, 13—18. Gal. iv. 22—31; also to Col. 
ii. 16,17. Gal. iii. 23—25; iv. 1—5? May it not be said of these 


234 § 34. RESULT. 


passages, (as Jerome says of our epistle, and which has been so often 
quoted with confidence,) ‘ spirant quiddam Philonianum?” Let the 
experiment be made by another Carpzoff, and I venture to predict, that, 
assuming the principle of argument which is assumed by Eichhorn and 
Schulz, we may easily show, that Paul himself must have been an Alex- 
andrian, and been educated in the Philonian school. 

One hint more, and I dismiss the subject. Is not the Septuagint 
Alexandrine Greek? Are not the Apocryphal books connected with the 
Old Testament, Alexandrine Greek? Does not the whole New Testa- 
ment Greek bear a close resemblance to the style of these two classes of 
books? Are not Paul’s epistles Hebrew-Greek, like all the rest? How 
can it be shown, then, that the author of our epistle was an Alexandrian, 
because he writes Alexandrine Greek? If the argument be valid for this 
purpose, which Eichhorn and Schulz employ, then may we prove, that 
all the New Testament writers were Alexandrians. Quod nimium facit, 
nihil facit. 


§ 34. Result. 


The conclusion, then, to be deduced, from the preceding examination, 
seems to be, that the arguments drawn from the style and diction of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, are not to be relied on as deciding the question 
against the Pauline origin of it. No case of this nature can be deter- 
mined by assertion. Allegations made for such a purpose, if found to 
be contradicted by facts, are not to determine the manner in which the 
question before us is to be decided. 

One other thing may be said with truth, which has an important bear- 
ing on this question. If the znternal evidence is altogether insufficient 
to decide the point at issue in the negative, the external is equally so. 
Indeed, the historical evidence against the Pauline origin of our epistle 
is, as we have seen, so little, so vague, and for the most part so indirect, 
that we may well say, ‘‘ the objections have never been of an historzcal 
nature, but of a conjectural one.” They have arisen more from taste 
and feeling, than from tradition or testimony. 

On the whole, I must acquiesce in the opinion of Origen, which I 
repeat as the general voice of antiquity; IT Is NOT WITHOUT REASON 
THE ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN TO US, THAT THIS EPISTLE 
1s PAut’s. Nor should I differ materially from those who, with Eusebius, 
can say, rov d€ Iavdov mpddndor cai aadeic ai dexaréooapec, fourteen 
epistles are CLEARLY and CERTAINLY Paul’s. I consider, however, the 


§ 35. WAS BARNABAS THE AUTHOR ? 235 


form of the proposition, as stated by Origen, to be the most becoming, in 
regard to a point so controverted, and to contain, for substance, all 
which it is necessary or expedient for us to assert and to believe. 


§ 35. Was Barnabas the Author? 


Whoever is satisfied with the arguments in favour of the Pauline origin 
of our epistle, may dispense with the examination, whether any other 
person than this apostle has a title to be considered as the author. But 
as past experience must lead one to believe, that unanimity in regard to 
this subject is not yet to be expected, but that some may still incline to 
adopt opinions about the authorship of our epistle, which were avowed or 
defended in ancient times ; it seems to be necessary, briefly at least, to 
examine the claims of some others, as well as those of Paul. 

The doubts raised in ancient times, whether Paul wrote the epistle to 
the Hebrews, occasioned conjectures with regard to several other per- 
sons. Among the remains of ancient Christian writings, we find some 
hints that Barnabas was the author of our epistle. We first meet with 
these, in the essay of Tertullian, de Pudicitia, ec. 201. ‘* Extat,” says 
he, “enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos,” i. e. there is extant in 
epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews. This is simple assertion, 
without any reference to the reasons why Tertullian supposes Barnabas 
to be the author. He does not intimate whether he gathers it from tra- 
dition, or assumes it as a matter of mere opinion. He speaks of it as a 
thing which he believes ; which seems to imply that others in that quar- 
ter of the church were probably of the same opinion. But we find no 
mention of this opinion again, until so late as the end of 4th century, 
when Jerome adverting to it says, ‘‘ Most [of the Latins] believe, that the 
epistle to the Hebrews belongs to Barnabas, or Clement ;” see Berth. 
p- 2953, and Jerome in his Epist. ad Dardanum. Again, in his catalogue 
of ecclesiastical writers, under the word Paulus, he says, ‘“‘ The epistle 
to the Hebrews is thought not to be his, on account of the discrepancy 
of the style; but to belong to Barnabas, according to Tertullian; or to 
the evangelist Luke, according to some; or to Clement of Rome.” The 
same thing Philastrius (A.D. 380) repeats, Heres. c. 89. And in 
modern times Cameron and Schmidt have undertaken to defend the hypo- 
thesis, that Barnabas was the author of this epistle ; Bertholdt, ubi supra. 

This is all the evidence which history gives us, in respect to this 
subject; and this surely is too slender to build any opinion upon, which 
can lay claim to critical confidence. 


23A § 35. WAS BARNABAS THE AUTHOR ? 


But all hope of defending this opinion, with any degree of plausibility. 
is removed by a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with an epistle 
of Barnabas still extant, and undoubtedly the same that was extant in 
the days of Tertullian, as the quotations from it by the ancient Christian 
fathers evince. I produce here a few short extracts from this epistle, to 
enable every one to judge for himself, whether the author of the one 
epistle can be rationally supposed to have written the other. 

Chap. IX. Madere ovv, TEKVa, TEpt TaYTwWY TAovoiwc, OTe ’"APpadp, 
6 xpiroc repiropyy dove, év mrebpare mpopepac cig TOY viov TeEpLETEpE, 
aBwy Tey ypapparwy ddypara’ éyer yap’ Kai repterepey "ABpadp ex 
TOU OLKOV avTov dydpac déka Kat OxTw Kal TpLaKootove. Tic ovv ) dodeioa 
TOUTH YV@OLE 5 MaSere rove Cexaoxtw mpwrove, eira Tove TpLaKkosiouc. To be 
déxa bxrd, iora déka, ira bxrw" Exerc Inoovy. “Ore dé savpoc év TO T Epeddev 
Exe THY yao, Eyer Kat, Tpraxosiove. Andot ov Tov pev “Inoovy év rotc 
dvol ypdppact Kai éy évt, rov saupor. Oidey 6 thy Eupuroy dwpedy rife 
ddaxiic abrov Oéuevoc év hiv. Ovddele yynowrepoy Eater an’ Epov Noyor" 
Ge oda Gre dévor est tpetc. i.e. Children, learn abundantly in regard 
to all things; for Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, practised 
this rite, looking forward in the Spirit to the Son, receiving the doctrine 
of the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, And Abraham circum- 
cised, of his household, three hundred and eighteen men. What 
instruction is imparted by this? Learn as to the first eighteen, then as 
to the three hundred. As to eighteen, ira signifies ten, and jjra eight ; 
this means Jesus. And because the cross, signified by T, would possess 
grace, it says, three hundred. It points out Jesus, therefore, by the two 
letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has conferred upon 
us the engrafted gift of his doctrine. No one has learned more genuine 
doctrine of me; but I know that ye are worthy of it.” Cotelerius, Pat. 
Apostol. tom. i. p. 28. 

So, then, because Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen 
persons, (which, by the way, is not said in the Scriptures, see Gen. xvii. 
23- -27; comp. Gen. xiv. 14, which gave occasion to the mistake,) the 
system of Gospel truth is disclosed in this mysterious number; and this 
because ira stands for ten, jira for eight, and rav for three hundred, 
i. e. here is Jesus, and he crucified. Where, in all the New Testament, 
is any thing like such egregious trifling as this ? 

See, now, how the same Barnabas can explain the ceremony of the 
red heifer, the ashes of which were sprinkled upon offenders. After 


stating the ceremony, and that the ashes were sprinkled by three children, 
* 


§ 36. WAS LUKE THE AUTHOR ? 237 


he thus proceeds :—'O pdayog obrde ésey 6 "Enavic’ of xpoodepdrtec, divOpeg 
Gpaprwrol, ol mpocEevéeyKavrec airoy ett ohayhy’ elra ovKére avopec, ovKere 
apaprwrov % ddfa. Oi O& parrigorres maidec, evayyeopevoe Huly ry 
dgeow TOY dpapTi@y, Kal TOV tyviopov Tic Kapdiac, Otc EdwKe TOU evayyedtou 
tiv éovaiay, (ovat dexadvo tic papripioy TOY puvrAGY, Ore dexaddo ai pudal rou 
*Iapand,) ei¢ TO Knpvooey. Ara rl d€ rpEic watdec 01 payri~orrec; Eile prap- 
Tupiov "APpacap cai Ioaak cat ’laxwB, ore obroe peyddoe 7H Oe. “Ore dé 76 
Eptov émt ro Ebdov ; “Ore fy Bactela rod "Inaod ext r@ EtrAw* Oudre ot ErriLorrec 
sic avrov Choovra sic rov ai@va. Aca rt o€ TO Epuoy Kat TOY Vaowrorv; “Ore 
év TH Baorreia avrov Hpépa Ecovra Tovnpal cai punapat, év aic Hpeic owln- 
oopeBa’ Ore Kal ddydv THY cdpKa dia TOU PUTOU TOU Voowrov iarat. Kal dre 
TOUTO OUTW YyevopeEVa, Hply pey ese Paver, Exetvore O€ OKOTELWa" Ort OUK i}KOVoAY 
gwvii¢ Tov Kupiov. 

But enough. If all were cited, which betrays a feeble and puerile 
mind, the whole epistle must be transcribed. Let him who needs further 
argument on this subject, peruse the whole epistle to the Hebrews, and 
then read through the epistle of Barnabas. It is impossible that he 
should not feel the almost indescribable difference between the two 
writers. 

Here, then, is a case, where the possibility of mistake in judging is 
very small. The difference between this writer, and him who wrote the 
epistle to the Hebrews, in respect to style, precision, clearness, energy, 
brevity—in a word, every thing which characterizes any writing—is 
heaven-wide. The most obtuse perception cannot fail to discern it. It is 
a hopeless case, to plead the cause of an hypothesis like this. 


§ 36. Was Luke the Author? 


The first suggestion among the ancient fathers, that Luke had any part 
in the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, is found in a fragment 
of Clement of Alexandria, preserved by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. vi. 14, in 
which Clement asserts, that ‘‘ Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews 
in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke carefully translated it into the 
Greek.” See note, p.85. The same opinion, or tradition, Origen 
mentions thus: ‘‘ If I may give my opinion, I should say, the thoughts 
are the apostle’s; but the phraseology and composition belong to some 
one who relates what the apostle said, and as it were comments on the 
words of his master. But who wrote [i. e. wrote down] the epistle, God 


238 § 36. WAS LUKE THE AUTHOR? 


only knows. Report, which has come down to us, says, either that 
Clement of Rome wrote it, or that Luke the Evangelist did.” p. 89, 


supra. 

Both Bertholdt and Eichhorn have adduced Origen as asserting, that 
report attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Luke as the real author ; 
which the context in Origen by no means allows. I cannot but under- 
stand him as saying merely, that ‘‘ the ancients had a report; that either 
Luke or Clement wrote down the epistle ;’’ which corresponds with the 
opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Origen’s teacher in early life. We 
have seen that afterwards, among the Latin churches, either Luke, or 
Clement, was regarded as the real author of this epistle; for so the 
testimony of Jerome and Philastrius, cited in the preceding section, 
would seem to indicate. 

We have no historical ground, then, on which we can build the 
opinion, that Luke was the author of this epistle. An uncertain tradition 
of the fourth century is surely insufficient. And even if Origen be under- 
stood as asserting, that tradition, in his day, assigned the Composition of 
our epistle to Luke; he also asserts, at the same time, that traditionary 
testimony was at variance with itself, as one party assigned it to Clement 
of Rome. He evidently credits neither the one nor the other; at least, 
not in such a way as to be fully persuaded in his own mind ; for he says 
“< Who wrote down the epistle, 7d per adnSéc Ode cide.” 

The same uncertainty both Jerome and Philastrius exhibit, in the 
testimony to which allusion has just been made. 

It is no doubt true, that the style of Luke approximates much nearer 
to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, than the style of Barnabas; so 
that a comparison, in this respect, does not lead to so clear and satis- 
factory a result in this case, as in that. But the situation of Luke, 
(born and educated abroad, as he was, and never having resided long 
m Palestine,) hardly leads one to believe that he was so deeply versed 
in rabbinical lore, and in Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, as the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews must have been. 

The main difficulty, however, is the want of any external evidence 
that Luke was the author. And as there are, at least, no interna 
circumstances, or evidence from style, which speak much in favour 
of such an opinion, it must be abandoned as improbable, and altogether 


unsupported. 


—_- 


§ 37. WAS CLEMENT OF ROME THE AUTHOR? 232 


§ 37. Was Clement of Rome the author? 


Origen is the first, who mentions Clement as the possible writer of 
the epistle to the Hebrews. In what sense he does this, has been 
already considered. Jerome and Philastrius, long afterwards, mention 
that some in the Latin churches attributed the epistle to the Hebrews 
to Clement of Rome. The evidence of this from testimony, then, is not 
entitled to any degree of credit, sufficient to create serious doubts 
whether Clement may not have been the author. 

The internal evidence, drawn from a comparison of the epistle to the 
Hebrews with Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians, by no means 
fayours the supposition in question. Clement has often cited the epistle 
to the Hebrews. But this seems to me abundant proof, that he did 
not write that epistle himself; for, as we have already seen, he appeals 
to it as Scripture, in order to establish and confirm sentiments which 
he is inculcating, and in the same manner as he does elsewhere to the 
other Scriptures. Is this to be supposed, in case he himself wrote that 
epistle? Did Clement attribute scriptural authority to his own epistle ? 
Or did the church, whom he addressed, attribute scriptural authority 
to any epistles, but to those of an apostle? Does he any where in his 
letter appeal to other epistles than such? The obvious answer to these 
inquiries determines the question, whether Clement wrote the epistle to 
the Hebrews, in the negative. 

But further. The difficulty of style is so great, between the epistle 
of Clement and that to the Hebrews, as to make it sufficiently evident 
that both did not proceed from the same pen. I refer not merely to 
the choice of words, (although this might be easily shown to be con- 
siderable,) but to the general spirit and manner of the execution. There 
is an energy, originality, vividness of conception, and intensity of 
feeling, displayed every where in the epistle to the Hebrews, which is 
wholly wanting in Clement’s epistle. It is plain, kind, faithful; but 
it is moderate, comparatively tame, made up of many extracts from 
the Old Testament and from Paul, and of imitations, as close as might 
be, of the latter. But what a wide difference there is, after all, between 
the original writer and the imitator, every one must feel who reads both. 
The one is a feeble rivulet, gliding gently along, which, but for the 
occasional contributions it receives from other streams, would become 
absorbed by the earth over which it passes, and cease to flow; the 
other a mighty stream, overflowing all its banks, supplying with water, 


240 § 38. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS THE 


and fertilizing all the country through which it passes. It really seems 
to me, that a man might as well mistake a canal on the banks of the 
Nile for the noble river itself, as mistake Clement for the author of the 
epistle to the Hebrews. 


§ 38. Was Apollos the Author ? 


A supposition never made by any of the ancient churches, and first 
ventured upon, I believe, by Luther, Com. in Gen. xlviii. 20. Postil. 
Ecc. Test. S. Johann. Evang. p. 44. But this opinion has since been 
applauded or defended by Le Clere, Heumann, Miiller, Ziegler, and 
Bertholdt, p. 2974. 

The difficulties attending the supposition are, (1.) We have no 
external evidence in favour of it; no voice of antiquity being raised 
to testify, that Apollos has left one single lme of any written com- 
position behind him, much less such an epistle as that to the He- 
brews. (2.) We have no internal evidence of sucha fact; for there 
is no testimony of this nature in the epistle itself; and there can be no 
evidence drawn from the style of it compared with the style and diction 
of Apollos, inasmuch as we have no writing of Apollos, with which 
the comparison can be made. It follows, therefore, that those who 
believe Apollos to be the author, must believe so without any evidence 
external or internal. It is not worth our time to refute such a belief. 


§ 39. In what language was the Epistle originally written ? 


On this question, there has been a difference of opinion among critics, 
both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that 
‘‘Paul wrote the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke 
carefully translated it into Greek,” Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 14. Eusebius 
in the same manner says, that ‘‘ Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his 
vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or 
Clement translated it,” Euseb. iii. 28. So Jerome also; ‘‘Scripserat 
ut Hebreeus Hebreeis Hebraice,” (Catal. Vir. Illust. voc. Paulus ;) and 
then he adds, “that this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the 
colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of 
Paul's.” Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was Clement of 
Alexandria: and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the 
thoughts contained in the epistle were Paul’s, while the diction or 
costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the 
sentiments of the apostle. 


© 39. EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ? 241 


By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably doubt, these 
fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken in the days 
of the apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long ceased to 
be a vernacular language. 

It is quite plain also, that these fathers were led to ‘the conclusion, 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of 
Palestine, from their belief (so universal in ancient times) of its having 
been addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. 
It was very natural to draw such a conclusion; for would not an epistle 
addressed to Hebrews, in all probability, be more acceptable if written 
in their own vernacular language? Moreover, Paul was well ac- 
quainted with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem, and 
‘at the feet of Gamaliel;” and when he had visited there, he had 
addressed the Jewish multitude, who were excited against him, in their 
native tongue, Acts xxii. 1, 2. Why should it not be supposed, that if, 
as is probable, our epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was 
written in the dialect of that country. 

So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned ; although 
other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have 
coincided in opinion with those to which I have just referred. Among 
the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same 
opinion ; and particularly Michaelis, who has discussed the subject quite 
at length, in his introduction to this epistle. 

I do not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To 
my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are 
built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, -if admitted, 
‘would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. 
Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original 
writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mis- 
took his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original 
Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from 
considerations wholly a priori ; as if these were admissible in a question 
of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls 
wrong translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable 
probability. 

On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted 
with the Aramean language, (who has gone through with the New Testa- 
ment, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation 
from Aramean documents,) confesses, that, in respect to this epistle, he 

R 


242 § 39. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS THE 


finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramean origi- 
nal, and no marks that there ever was such an original. This testimony 
is of considerable importance in respect to the question before us: as it 
comes from a critic, who spent many years on the study of that which is 
most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, viz. 
the detection of the Aramean originals of the various parts of the New 
Testament. Berth. p. 2976. 

The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original, are deduced 
from two sources. First, that Hebrews are addressed in our epistle; to 
whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intel- 
ligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, cer- 
tainly could not read it. Secondly, that the diversity of style in the 
epistle to the Hebrews is so great, when compared with that of Paul’s 
epistles, that, unless we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come 
from another hand, we must be led to the conclusion, that Paul did not 
write it. 

Both of these topics have been already discussed above. I merely add 
here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should 
have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether 
the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Besides, if Paul did 
address it to the church at Cesarea, it is altogether probable that he 
wrote in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even 
if he did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for 
in every considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who 
understood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last posi- 
tion established beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s Intro- 
duction to the N. Test. vol. II. pp. 32—50. 

When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin ; yet there 
was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of 
Greek was very common at Rome. If Paul understood the Latin lan- 
guage, (which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided, when he 
wrote our epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used,) 
still he understood Greek so much better, that he would of course prefer 
writing in it. 

For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as 
more probable, that he would write the epistle to the Hebrews in the 
Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty- 
five years at least, in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during 
all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every 





EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ? 243 


where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and con. 
versed. Is it any wonder, then, that after twenty-five years incessant 
labour of preaching, conversing, and writing in this language, he should 
have preferred writing in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that under 
circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in 
his native dialect of Palestine? 

I cannot think it strange, therefore, that although the epistle to the 
Hebrews was in all probability directed to some part of Palestine, yet it 
was written by Paul in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, whatever may 
be the estimation put upon arguments of this nature, there are internal 
marks of its having been originally composed in Greek, which cannot 
well be overlooked. Let us examine them. 

Some of the arguments, produced by those who maintain that the 
original language of our epistle was Greek, it must be acknowledged, do 
not seem to be well founded. To such belongs the following. 

“ Instances of paronomasia occur in this epistle; which necessarily 
implies, that it was originally composed in its present language.” 

For example; Heb. v. 8, tuabey ag’ dy trabe. v.14, mpdg didkprow 
ado re Kat Kaxov. Vil. 3, drdrwp, apuirwp. ix. 10, éé Bpdpact kat ropaoe 
x1. 37, éxpioOyoay, éweipacOnoay. xill. 14, ob yap txouey woe pévoveay 
modwv, GAG THY peoveay exccnrovper. Vil. 22, Kpeirrovoe d:aOhKne yéyove 
Eyyvoc “Inoove, comp. v. 19, éyyifopev 7H OcM. X. 34, rv dpwayhy ray 
UrapyovTwy Udy pEeTa Yapac mpocececacbe, ywwwokorTec exety év Eavroig 
kpeirrova urapiuy év ovpavoic. See Eich. § 270. Bertholdt, p- 2987, who 
has only repeated the same things which Eichhorn had before said. 

Of these instances, that only from x. 34 seems to betray any real 
marks of design ; and even here, the marks are by no means of a decisive 
nature. Every one, who will examine any Greek writing whatever, may 
find in it more or less of apparent paronomasia, in the same way, without 
any difficulty ; and this, where the author had no intention of exhibiting 
it. Whether an author really designed to exhibit paronomasia, or not, 
will in general be very apparent. I cannot perceive, that any one of the 
alleged paronomasias in question, really appears to be the effect of 
design. If they are altogether accidental, they may have occurred in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, even if its present language is merely that of a 
translation. In fact, even designed paronomasias may, not unfrequently, 
occur in a translation. The argument in favour of the Greek being the 
original language of the epistle to the Hebrews, built on such instances 
of paronomasia as the above, (where, in most cases, it is a mere homo- 

R2 


244 § 39. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS 


phony of like tenses or cases,) is too uncertain and too slender to be 
rested on, as a proper support of the opinion m question. 

But there are better arguments than such, to prove that the epistle to 
the Hebrews was originally written in Greek. They may be derived, 
from the manner in which the quotations from the Old Testament are 
made and employed, in our epistle. 

(1.) The author has, throughout, quoted the Sept. version, and fol- 
lowed it in nearly all cases, even where it differs considerably from the 
Hebrew. This, indeed, might be done to a certain extent, by a trans- 
lator. For example; if Paul had appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures, 
and cited passages from them, the translator might have taken the cor- 
responding passages in his Greek Bible. It might easily be supposed, 
that it would have been very natural for him to do so, in all cases where 
there was no considerable difference between the original Hebrew and 
the Greek version. But, 

(2.) The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has cited and employed 
the Septuagint version, in order to illustrate his positions, in cases where the 
Septuagint does not correspond with the original Hebrew. For example ; 
Heb. i. 6, Let all the angels of God worship him, is quoted, in order to 
show that the Son of God is superior to the.angels. If this be quoted, 
(as is more generally supposed,) from Ps. xeyii. 7, the context there 
appears to show, that the subject is, the superiority of Jehovah to idol- 
gods, not of Christ to the angels. Instead of “ Let all the angels of 
God worship him,” the Hebrew runs thus : “‘ Worship him, all ye gods;” 
and so our English translation has it. If the quotation be made from 
Deut. xxxii. 43, (as some have supposed,) then is the argument still 
stronger; for in the original Hebrew there is not a vestige of the passage 
quoted ; it is found only in the Septuagint. In either ease, the force of 
the appeal seems to rest on the Septuagint version, and not on the original 
Hebrew. Of course, the writer must be supposed to have used that 
version, in his original composition, by all those who hold that he appeals, 
in this case, to a passage of the Old Testament. 

But, as I have some doubts whether such an appeal is here made by 
the apostle, of course I cannot attribute much weight to this argument. 
See Comm. on Heb. i. 6. 

(3.) The writer appeals, in Chap. ii., to Ps. vili., in order to prove 
that the Son of God must possess a human nature, which should be 
exalted above that of angels, and placed at the head of the creation. 
But the phrase in Hebrew, Thou hast made him a little below the 


THE EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ? 245 


Elohim, is rendered by the Septuagint, Thou hast made him for a little 
teme, [or, a little] lower than the angels; rendering DTN angels, 
which, to say the least, is an unusual sense of the word. Yet, on the 
sense of the version in the Septuagint, turns the force of this proof, that 
Christ was, in his human nature, superior to the angels. 

(4.) In chap. vii., the writer has translated the appellations, Melchi- 
sedek, king of Salem, and told at length what they mean in Greek. It 
is possible, that such a thing might be done by a translator; but then 
the explanation, in this case, appears plainly to be interwoven with the 
discourse itself, and to be a prima manu. 

(5.) In chap. ix. 16, 17. Christ is said, in reference to the old covenant 
under Moses, to be the mediator of a new and better covenant, MA, 
in Greek duabjxn. But, from the double meaning of draOj«en in Gress 
viz. covenant and testament, the writer takes occasion, having mentioned 
the death of Jesus, to observe, that the new évaOijxn has received its full 
confirmation, viz. as a testament, by the death of the testator; and that 
he may the more effectually remove all offence at the death of Jesus, he 
goes on to say, that a dvaOyKn, testament, (for now he uses the word in 
this sense,) has no force while the testator is living. Of course, the 
death of Jesus was necessary to ratify the new raOfcn; and it did in 
fact ratify and establish it, to all intents and purposes. 

Now the whole of this reasoning depends on the two-fold sense of the 
word drafijxen, in Greek; for the original word 4A, in Hebrew, never 
has the sense of testament or will. ; 

The Greek word ccabyxcn has, indeed, been adopted into the Rabbinic 
Hebrew, and sounds pF. But that it belonged to the Hebrew lan- 
guage in Paul’s day, eneie i is no certain proof; and even if there were, 
ma must have been the only word to which he referred, for MA 
is an appropriate word to designate the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispen- 
sations, or the old covenant. Of course, the writer’s illustration depends 
on the two-fold meaning of the Greek word c.abfjxn; consequently, his 
language must have been Greek. 

(6.) In chap. x. 3, seq. the writer undertakes to show, that the sacri- 
fice of Christ was not only necessary, in order to make expiation for sin, 
but that it was predicted in the Psalms, that he should make such an 
offering. In proof of this, he quotes the Septuagint version, A body hast 
thou prepared for me, x. 54, viz. a body for an offering or expiatory 
sacrifice. Compare now Psalm xi. 7, where the Hebrew runs thus, 
% I)D EN, mine ears hast thou opened, or bored, i.e. thou hast made 


246 § 40. HELPS TO THE STUDY OF THE EPISTLE ? 


me obedient. But it is the Septuagint version which appears to give 
direct occasion for the specific allegation of the writer, viz. that Christ 
had made an offering of himself as a propitiatory sacrifice. 

Other instances of a similar nature have been produced by critics, 
from our epistle; but as they are less striking, and may admit of some 
doubt, I have thought best to exclude them. These are sufficient to 
show, that as the very nature of the proof or argument, which the writer 
brings forward, depends, in some respects, on the form of the Septuagint 
version, or, to say the least, the form of the proof depends on this, so he 
must have written in Greek, and appealed to the Greek version ; for it is 
improbable to the last degree, that if the epistle had been written in 
Hebrew, he would have appealed to any but the original Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, when addressing those who were acquainted with them. 

Whatever difficulties the theologian or the interpreter may find, in 
reconciling these facts with the method of arguing which he may suppose 
appropriate to an inspired writer, it cannot alter the facts themselves. 
These are palpable, and not matters of conjecture. And admitting this, 
we are compelled to draw the conclusion, that THE ORIGINAL LAN- 
GUAGE OF OUR EPISTLE MUST HAVE BEEN GREEK. 

I would add merely, that the vivid colouring and animation of the 
whole epistle, the impassioned and energetic expression of it, and its 
native, unconstrained appearance, all contribute to prove, that it was 
originally written in the same language in which it now appears. 


§ 40. Critical and Exegetical helps to the study of the Epistle. 


It is not my object to make out a copious catalogue of these: but 
only to notice those which are more particularly deserving of attention. 


Ancient Greek Commentators. 


Chysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, the Greek commentators on 
this epistle, are all deserving of an attentive perusal, in various respects. 
Philological, in the technical sense of this word, the reader must not 
expect to find them. Chrysostom is the most copious, flowing, and 
oratorical ; Theodoret, the most brief and comprehensive; but Theo- 
phylact is by far the most agreeable, especially for beginners in the 
study of Greek commentary. He comprises all that is valuable in 
Chrysostom, and, for the most part, nearly in Chrysostom’s words ; 
while, at the same time, he has given to the whole, more ease, simplicity, 
and compactness. Seldom does he venture upon any new opinion of 


§ 40. HELPS TO THE STUDY OF THE EPISTLE. 247 


his own; and when he does, it is with great deference to his predeces- 
sors. The book deserves a republication at the present day, as a part 
of the apparatus requisite to the study of our epistle, and as one of 
the easiest and best means of introducing the young interpreter to an 
acquaintance with the Greek Commentators. 

If a glossary should be added to such a book, containing the few 
words in Theophylact that are not found in our common Greek lexi- 
cons, and also the very good Latin translation which now accompanies 
the Greek of Theophylact, it would constitute an excellent book, for 
commencing the study and the knowledge of the original Greek fathers. 
Such an apparatus is already prepared, and the book only waits for 
patronage, in order to be published. 


English Commentators. 


Owen, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with preliminary 
Exercitations, 7 vols. 8vo. Edinb. 1812-14.—This work is replete with 
remarks of a doctrinal and experimental nature. The philology of it 
will be less valued at the present day. 

J. Pierce, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of Paul, 4to. Lond. 
1733. Some of the sentiments differ widely from those of Owen, and 
are such as ought to be examined with great caution; but the work, 
asa whole, exceeds any English commentary which I have read. The 
author has a great deal of acuteness, and is by no means wanting in 
regard to a tact for criticism. 

The works of Sykes, Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Scott, Clark, 
and others, on this epistle, may profit some classes of readers, but they 
are not adapted to the higher purposes of philology. 


Commentaries in Latin and German. 


Among the older commentators, Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clere, Drusius, 
J. Cappell, Limborch, and Wolfius, have distinguished themselves. The 
more recent works are the following. 

J. B. Carpzovius, Exercitt. in Pauli Epist. ad Hebreos ex Philone 
Alexandrino, 8vo. Helmst. 1750.—The same author has also published, 
Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Hebraer, Helmst. 1795. 

J. A. Cramer, Erklérung des Briefs an die Hebraer, 4to. Kopen- 
hagen, 1757. 

C. F. Schmidius, Observatt. super Epist. ad Hebreeos, histor. crit. et 
theologicee, 8vo. Lips, 1766. 


248 § 40. HELPS TO THE STUDY OF THE EPISTLE. 


J. D. Michaelis, Erklarung des Briefs an die Hebraer, 4to. 2 edit, 
1780. 

S. F. N. Morus, Der Brief an die Hebraer uebersetzt, 8vo. Leip. 
1786. 

G. C. Storr, Pauli Brief an die Hebraer erlautert. 8vo. Tiibingen, 
1809, 

J. A. Ernesti, Lectiones in Epist. ad Hebreos; illustrationes adje- 
cit G. J. Dindorf, 8vo. Lips. 1795 ;—a book of real worth, in a critical 
respect, although not executed with much taste as to form and manner. 
I have found in it more to my purpose than in any other of the com- 
mentaries which I have consulted. 

Heinrichs, in Nov. Test. Koppiano, Vol viii. This is a work, which 
exhibits some striking remarks, and no inconsiderable tact for exegesis. 
But the occasional extravagance of this writer’s opinions, and the 
haste with which he throws off his works, are to be regretted; as he 
plainly possesses ability to go deeper into his subjects of inquiry. 

D. Schulz, Der Brief an die Hebraer, Einleitung, Uebersetzung, und 
Anmerkungen, 8vo. Breslau, 1818. 

The latest work is by C. F. Boehme, Epist. ad Heb. Latine vertit, 
atque commentario instruxit perpetuo. 8vo. Lips. 1825. See above, 
§ 31. 


Literature of the Epistle. 


The introductions of Michaelis, Henlein, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, 
and De Wette, exhibit the sum of what has been hitherto accomplished, 
in regard to this subject. Seyffarth and Schulz, in the works examined 
above, have also discussed the same subject; as have Ziegler, Noesselt, 
Weber, Lardner, and others. Wolfius, Storr, Schmidt, Cramer, and 
most other commentators, have touched, more or less, on the literary 
topics that pertain to the epistle. Lardner, Storr, Ziegler, Cramer, 
Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, and Schulz, are most conspicuous among 
the class of writers now under consideration. 


249 


THE 


Peet he TO THe HEBREWS. 


Dignity of Christ. His superiority over the angels. 


I. Gop, who in ancient times spake often and in various ways to 
2 the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken 
to us by his Son; whom he hath appointed Lord of all things, 
3 by whom also he made the worlds; (who, being the radiance 
of his glory and the exact image of his substance, and con- 
trolling all things by his own powerful word,) after he had by 
himself made expiation for our sins, sat down at the right 
4 hand of the majesty on high, being exalted as much above 
the angels, as he hath obtained a name more excellent than 
they. 
5 For to which of the angels said he, at any time, “ Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” And again, “I will 
6 be his Father, and he shall be my Son?” Again also, when 
he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, “ Let 
all the angels of God worship him.” 
7 Moreover, of the angels it is said, “ Who maketh his angels 
8 winds, and his ministering servants a flame of fire.” But of 
the Son, “ Thy throne, O God, is eternal ; a sceptre of upright- 
9 ness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved right- 
eousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore, O God, thy God hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” 
10 Also, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning, didst lay the foundations 
11 of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands: they 
shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, they shall all wax 
12 old like a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
and they shall decay; but thou art the same, and thy years 
shall never cease.” 
13 Unto which of the angels, also, hath he ever said, “ Sit thou 
at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool ?” 
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to assist those 
_ who are to obtain salvation ? 


Exhortation diligently to seek the salvation proffered by the Lord of glory. 


II. Ir behooveth us, therefore, the more abundantly to give 
heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we 


250 HEBREWS II. 2—18 


2 should slight them. For if the law communicated by angels 
was established, and every transgression and disobedience 

3 received a just reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so 
great salvation? which being first declared by the Lord, was 
afterwards confirmed unto us by those who heard [him ;] 

4 God also bearing witness with them, by signs, and wonders, 
and diverse miraculous powers, and communications of the 
Holy Spirit, according to his will. 


Further declaration of Christ’s superiority over the angels. Objections against 
this, drawn from his human nature, removed, by showing the elevation of that 
nature, and the important objects accomplished by assuming it. 


5 Moreover, unto the angels hath he not put in subjection 


the world that was to come, of which we are now speaking. 
6 But one, in a certain place, hath testified, saying, “‘ What is 
man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man, that 
7 thou dost regard him? [Yet] thou hast made him but little 
lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and 
honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. Allthings 
8 hast thou put under his feet.” Now, by putting all things in 
subjection to him, he left nothing which is not subject to him. 
For the present, indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected 
9 to him; but we see Jesus, who was made but little lower than 
the angels, crowned with glory and honour on account of the 
suffering of death, when by the grace of God he had tasted 
10 death for all. It became him, also, for whom are all things, 
and by whom are all things, to bestow, on account of suffer- 
ings, the highest honours upon him who is the Captain of their 
salvation, leading many sons to glory. 
1] = Furthermore, both he who maketh expiation, and they for 
whom expiation is made, are of one [nature ;] for which cause 
12 he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will de- 
clare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congrega- 
13 tion will I praise thee.” And again, “I will put my trust in 
him.” And again, “ Behold, I, and the children which God 
14 hath given me!” Since then the children are partakers of 
flesh and blood, himself also in like manner partook of them, 
in order that by his death he might subdue him who had a 
15 deadly power, that is, the devil, and free those, who, through 
fear of condemnation, had, during their whole lives, been 
exposed to a state of bondage. 
16 Besides, he doth not at all help the angels, but he helpeth 
17 the seed of Abraham. Hence it was necessary, that in all 
respects he should be like to his brethren, so that he might 
be a merciful and faithful high priest as to things which per- 
tain to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the 
18 people. For inasmuch as he himself suffered, being tempted, 
lie is able to succour those who are tempted. 





HEBREWS II. 1—-19. tv. 1—4. 251 


Comparison of Christ with Moses. Warning against disregarding his admonitions. 


IYI. Wuererorg, holy brethren, who have received the heavenly 


Oo ow BW bw 


Oo ON 


IV. 


4 


invitation, attentively consider Jesus, the apostle and high 
priest whom we have acknowledged ; who was faithful to him 
that appointed him, even as Moses [was] in all his house. 
For he is worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as the 
builder is entitled to more honour than the house. (Now, every 
house is built by some one, and he who formed all things is 
God.) Moses, however, was faithful in all his house as a 
servant, for the sake of testifying those things which were to 
be declared: but Christ, as a Son, over his house; whose 
house we are, provided we hold fast unto the end our confi- 
dence and joyful hope. 

Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith, “To-day, while ye 
hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, 
in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers 
tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 
Wherefore I was angry with that generation, and said, They 
do always err in their hearts, and they have not acknowledged 
my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into 
my rest.” 

Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of ‘you an evil and 
unbelieving heart, so that he may apostatize trom the living 
God. But admonish one another continually, while it is 
called to-day, so that no one of you may become hardened by 
sinful delusion. For we shall be made partakers of the bless- 
ings which Christ bestows, provided we hold fast even to the 
end our first confidence. 

With regard to the saying, ‘ To-day, while ye hear his voice, 
harden not your hearts, as in the provocation ;” who now were 
they, that when they heard did provoke? Nay, did not all, 
who came out of Egypt under Moses? And with whom was 
he angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, 
whose corpses fell in the wilderness? ‘To whom did he 
swear, that they should not enter into his rest, except to those 
who did not believe? We see, then, that they could not enter 
in, because of unbelief. 

The rest promised to believers in ancient times is still proffered. The threatenings 
against unbelief remain in full force. 

Ler us beware, therefore, since a promise is still left of 
entering into his rest, lest any one of you should come short 
of it. For to us also blessings are proclaimed, as well as to 
them; the word, however, which they heard, did not profit 
them, not being connected with faith in those who heard it. 
But we who believe do enter into the rest; as he says, “So I 
sware, in my wrath, [unbelievers] shall not enter into my 
rest ;”” namely, [rest from] the works which had been per- 
formed, after the foundation of the world was laid. For [the 


252 


13 


14 
15 


J 
HEBREWS IV. 5.—v. 5. 


Scripture] speaketh, in a certain place, concerning the seventh 
day, in this manner, ‘And God rested, on the seventh day, 
from all his works.” And again, in this [manner,] “ They 
shall not enter into my rest.”’ Since then it remaineth that 
some must enter into that [rest,] and they, to whom this 
blessing was formerly proclaimed, did not enter in because 
of unbelief, [it followeth that believers only can enter into 
ite * 

ere he specifieth a particular day, To-pay, when speak- 
ing by David, so long a time afterwards; as it is said, “ To- 
pay, while ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Now, 
if Joshua had given them rest, then he would not have spoken 
of another day. 

Consequently, there remaineth a rest for the people of God. 
He, moreover, who entereth into his [God’s] rest, will also 
cease from his own works, as God did from his. 

Let us strive, then, to enter into that rest, so that no 
one may perish in like manner, through unbelief. For the 
threatening of God hath an active and mighty power, yea, it is 
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the divid- 
ing asunder of both life and spirit, and of the joints and mar- 
row; he also judgeth the thoughts and purposes of the heart ; nor 
is there any thing which can be concealed from his sight, but 
all is naked and exposed to the view of him, unto whom we 
must render our account. 


Comparison of Christ with the Jewish high priest introduced. Reproof for 
ignorance of the higher doctrines of the Christian religion, followed by encou- 
ragement and exhortation. 

Moreover, since we have a high priest whe has passed 
through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold 
fast to our profession. For we have not a high priest, who 
is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses; but one 
who was tempted in all respects as we are, [yet] without sin. 
Let us, therefore, approach the throne of grace with confidence 
that we may obtain mercy, and find favour, so as to be 
assisted in time of need. 

Now every high priest, taken from among men, is appointed 
in behalf of men on account of things which pertain to God, 
that he may present both oblations and sacrifices for sin ; 
being able to shew kindness to the ignorant and the erring, 
inasmuch as he himself is compassed with infirmity. On this 
account, also, he must present sin-offerings, as well for himself 
as for the people. Moreover, no one assumeth for himself this 
honour, but he is called [thereto] of God, even as Aaron was. 

In like manner, Christ also did not ciaim for himself the 
honour of being high priest; but he who said, “ Thou art my 

* Supplied from ver. 3. 


HEBREWS v. 6—v1. 12. 253 


Son, this day have I begotten thee,” [bestowed this honour 

6 upon him.] So also he saith, in another place, “ Thou art a 
priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek.’’ 

7 The same, in the days of his incarnation, (having offered up 
prayers and supplications, with strong cries and with tears, 
unto him that was able to save him from death, and being 

8 delivered from that which he feared,) although a Son, was 
9 made acquainted with obedience in a state of suffering. Then, 
when exalted to glory, he became the author of eternal salva- 

10 tion, to all who obey him, being called of God, “ A high 
priest, after the order of Melchisedek.”’ ; 

11 Respecting him we have much to say, which it will be dif- 

12 ficult to explain, since ye are dull of apprehension. For even 
when ye ought to be able to teach, after [so long] a time, ye 
have need to be taught again the first elements of the oracles 

13 of God, and need milk rather than solid food. For every one, 
who is a partaker of milk, is unskilled in the doctrines of reli- 

14 gion; he is yet achild. But solid food is for those of mature 
age, who have faculties exercised by practice for the distin- 
guishing of both good and evil. 

VI. Wherefore, leaving the first principles of Christian doctrine, 
let us go on toward a mature state [of religious knowledge ;] 
not laying again the foundation, concerning repentance from 

2 works which cause death, and faith towards God ; [concerning] 
the doctrine of baptisms, and the laying on of hands, and the 

3 resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this will 

4 we do, if God permit. For it is impossible, that they, who 
have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly 
5 gift, and been made partakers of the holy Spirit, and have 
tasted the good word of God, and the miraculous powers of the 

6 age which was to come, and have fallen away, should be again 
renewed to repentance, since they have crucified for themselves 
the Son of God, and openly exposed him to shame. 

7 Now the earth, which drinketh in the rain that frequently 
cometh upon it, and bringeth forth fruits useful to those for 

8 whose sake it is tilled, receiveth blessings from God. But 
that which bringeth forth thorns and briars, is reprobate, and 
is near to a curse which will end in burning. 

9 But, beloved, we confidently hope for better things concern- 

10 ing you, even those connected with salvation, although we 
thus speak. For God is not unkind, so that he will forget 
your labour, and the love which ye have shown toward his 
name, in having performed kind offices towards the saints, and 
in still performing them. 

11 Moreover, we are desirous that every one of you should 
manifest the same diligence, for the sake of a full assurance of 
hope, even to the end; so that ye may not be slothful, but 

12 imitators of those who, through faith and patient expectation- 


254 HEBREWS VI. 13-—vil. 12. 


13 have come to the possession of promised blessings. For when 
God made a promise to Abraham, seeing he could swear by no 
14 greater, he sware by himself, saying, “ I will greatly bless 
15 thee, and exceedingly multiply thee.” And so, having 
16 patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Now, 
men swear by one who is greater, and the oath for confir- 
17 mation [maketh] an end of all dispute among them. In like 
manner, God, desirous of shewing more abundantly to the 
heirs of promise the immutability of his purpose, interposed 
18 by an oath; so that by two immutable things, concerning 
which it is impossible for God to lie, we, who have sought for 
a refuge, might be strongly persuaded to hold fast the hope 
19 that is set before us, which we cleave to as an anchor of the 
soul sure and firmly fixed, and which entereth within the veil, 
20 whither Jesus our forerunner hath gone, being made high- 
priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek. 


Comparison of Christ, as a priest, with Melchisedek. New order of things 
required by the appointment of such a priest; which appointment was made 
with the solemnity of an oath; and the office created by it was perpetual, 
allowing of no succession like that of the Jewish priests. 

VII. Now this Melchisedek was king of Salem, and priest of the 
most high God. The same met Abraham returning from the 

2 slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. To him, also, Abra- 
ham gave a tenth part of all. By interpretation, [his name] 
meaneth, first King of Righteousness; and then, he is also 

3 King of Salem, which meaneth, King of Peace. Without 
father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither begin- 
ning of days nor end of life, but being like to the Son of God; 
he remaineth a high priest perpetually. 

4 Consider, now, how great he must be, to whom Abraham 

5 the patriarch gave a tenth part of the spoils! Even the sons 
of Levi, who take the office of priests, have indeed a command 
by the law to tithe the people, that is, their brethren, although 

6 descended from the loins of Abraham; but he, whose descent 
is not counted from them, tithed Abraham, and blessed him to 

7 whom the promises were made. And beyond all controversy, 
the inferior was blessed by the superior. 

8 Here, also, men receive tithes who die; but there, one of 

9 whom it is testified that he liveth. Yea, (if I may so speak,) 
even Levi himself, who receiveth tithes, was tithed in Abra- 

10 ham; for he was then in the loins of his ancestor when Mel- 
cisedek met him. 

11 Moreover, if there had been a perfect accomplishment of 
what was needed, by the Levitical priesthood, (for the law 
was given to the people, in connexion with this), what neces- 
sity was there still, that another priest should arise after the 
order of Melchisedek, and not be named after the order of 

12 Aaron? But if the priesthood be changed, there must needs 


} 


e HEBREWS Vil. ]3—viur. 3. 255 


13 be also a change of the law. Now he, concerning whom these 
things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom 

14 served at the altar ; for it is plain, that our Lord sprang from 
Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses said nothing concern- 

15 ing the priesthood. And still more manifest is it, [that the 
priesthood is changed,] if another priest hath arisen, like to 

16 Melchisedek ; who hath not been made so by a law of tempo- 

17 rary obligation, but by an authority of endless duration. For 
{the Scripture] declareth, “Thou art a priest for ever, after 
the order of Melchisedek.” 

18 There is, also, a setting aside of the preceding law, because 

19 it was weak and unavailing. For the law did not fully accom- 
plish any thing; but the introduction of a better hope [doth], 
by which we draw near to God. 

20 Furthermore, inasmuch as not without an oath [Jesus was 
made a priest], (for they are made priests without an oath, 
but he with an oath, by him who said to him, ** The Lord hath 
sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the 

22 order of Melchisedek,”’) by so much hath Jesus become the 
surety of a better covenant. 

23 Those priests, moreover, are many, because they are not 

24 suffered to continue by reason of death; but he, because he 
continueth for ever, hath a priesthood without any succession ; 

25 and on this account he is able always to save those who come 
unto God by him, since he ever liveth to interpose in their 
behalf. 

The subject of Christ’s qualifications for the office of a priest, (proposed in ch. v. 
23, and briefly discussed in ch. v. 7—9), resumed. His superiority over the 
Jewish priests, in respect to these, exhibited. 

26 Such a high priest, moreover, was needful for us, who is 
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted 

27 above the heavens; who hath not any daily necessity, like the 
high priest, to offer sacrifices, first for their own sins, and 
then for the sins of the people; for this he did, once for all, 

28 when he offered up himself. Now the law maketh men bigh 
priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which 
was since the law, [maketh] the Son [high priest], who is 
exalted to glory for evermore. 

Expiatory office of Christ as a priest. His functions, the dispensation under which 
they are performed, the place of exercising them, the manner and effects of them, 
compared with those of the Jewish priests. 

VIII. The principal thing, however, among those of which we 
are speaking, is, that we have such a high priest, who is seated 

2 on the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens, a 
minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the 

Lord hath reared and not man. 

3 Now every high priest is appointed, in order that he may 
present oblations and sacrifices; whence it becometh neces- 


256 HEBREWS VIII. 4—1x. 8. 


sary, that this one also should have something which he may 

4 present. But if he were on earth, then he could net be a 
priest, seeing there are priests who present oblations accord- 
ing to the law; (the same who perform service in [that sanc- 
tuary which is but] a mere copy of the heavenly one; for 
Moses, when about to build the tabernacle, was divinely 
admonished, ‘‘ See now,” said he, “ that thou make all things 

6 according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount.”) But 
now, he hath obtained a service which is more excellent; as 
much more as the covenant is better of which he is mediator, 
and which is sanctioned by better promises. 

7 Moreover, if that first covenant had been faultless, then 

8 would no place have been sought for the second. But finding 
fault [with the first], he saith to them, ‘‘ Behold the days are 
coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant 

9 with the house of Israe] and with the house of Judah; not 
according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in 
the day when I took them by the hand, to bring them out of 
the land of Egypt ; for they did not continue in my covenant, 

10 and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant, 
which I will’ make with the house of Israel after those days, 
saith the Lord; I will impress my laws upon their minds, and 
engrave them upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and 

11 they shall be my people. No one shall teach his fellow- 
citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for 

12 all shall know me, from the least even to the greatest. For 
I will be merciful in respect to their iniquities, and their sins 
and their transgressions will | remember no more.” 

13 By saying, “a new [covenant],” he representeth the first as 
old; now that which hath become old, and is advancing in 
age, is nigh to dissolution. 

IX. Moreover the first [covenant] had ordinances of service, and 

2 a sanctuary of an earthly nature. For an outer tabernacle was 
prepared, in which was the candlestick, and the table, and the 

3 shewbread, which is called, The holy place. And behind the 

4 second veil was the tabernacle, which is called, The holy of 
holies, containing the golden censer, and the ark of the 
covenant overlaid with gold on every part, in which was the 
golden urn that contained the manna, and the rod of Aaron 

5 which budded, and the tables of the covenant. Over it, also, 
were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy-seat. 
Of these things, it is not necessary, at present, particularly to 
speak. 

6 Nou these being thus prepared, the priests performing the 
7 services entered continually into the outer tabernacle. But 
into the inner one, only the high priest [entered], once in 
each year, not without blood, which he presented for himself 

8 and for the sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit signi- 





HEBREWS Ix. 9—26. 257 


ficd, that the way to the most holy place was not yet open, 
while the first tabernacle had a standing ; which hath been a 
type down to the present time, in which both oblations and 
sacrifices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is 
needed in regard to the conscience, for him who performeth 
the services; [and all the] ordinances pertaining to the flesh, 
had respect only to meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, 
enjoined until the time of reformation. But Christ being 
come, a high priest of future blessings, through a greater and 
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of 
this [material] creation, he entered once for all into the holy 
place, not with the blood of goats and of bullocks, but with 
his own blood, procuring eternal redemption. Now if the 
blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling 
the unclean, cleanse in respect to the purification of the flesh, 
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by an eternal 
Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purify our con- 
science from works which cause death, so that we may serve 
the living God ! 

On this account, also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, 
so that, his death being a ransom for the sins [committed] 
under the former covenant, they who have been called might 


receive the promised blessing of the eternal inheritance. For 


where there is a testament, it is necessary that the death of 
the testator should take place; because a testament is valid 
in respect to those only who are dead, seeing it hath no force 
while the testator is living. 

Hence, not even the first [covenant] was ratified without 
blood. For when all the commandment, according to the law, 
had been read by Moses to all the people, taking the blood of 
bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, 
he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 
“This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined 
upon you.” ‘The tabernacle, also, and likewise all the vessels 
for service, did he sprinkle in the same manner with blood. 
Indeed, almost every thing is required by the law to be 
purified by blood; and without the shedding of blood there 
is no forgiveness. 

Since, then, the likenesses of heavenly things must needs 
be purified in this manner, the heavenly things themselves 
{must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. For Christ 
did not enter into a sanctuary made with hands, which is only 
a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, that he might 
thenceforth appear before God for us. Yet not that he might 
frequently make an offering of himself, like the high priest 
who entereth into the sanctuary every year with blood not his 


26 own, (for then he must needs have often suffered, since the 


foundation of the world) ; but now, at the close of this age, 
s 


258 


19 
20 


FPEBREWS Ix. 27—20. 


he hath once for all made his appearance, in order that he 
might remove the punishment due to sin, by the sacrifice of 
himself. For since it is appointed unto men to die but once, 
and after this [cometh] the judgment; so Christ also, after 
having once for all made an offering of himself to bear the sins 
of many, will appear, at his second [coming], without a sin- 
offering. for the salvation of those who wait for him. 

Moreover, the law, which containeth a mere outline of 
future blessings, and not the complete image of these things, 
can never, by those yearly sacrifices which are continually 
offered, fully accomplish what is needed for those who approach 
[the altar.] For if it could, then would not these offerings 
have ceased, because the worshippers, once for all made clean, 
would no longer have been conscious of sins? On the con- 
trary, by these [sacrifices] yearly remembrance is made of sin. 

And truly, it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats 
should take away sin. Wherefore, [Christ,] entering into the 
world, saith, “ Sacrifice and oblation thou desirest not, but a 
body hast thou prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and 
[offerings] for sin thou hast no pleasure. ‘Then said I, Lo! I 
come, O God, to do thy will; (in the volume of the book it is 
written concerning me.) When he saith, in the first place, 
“* Sacrifice and oblation, and whole burnt offerings and [offer- 
ings] for sin, thou desirest not, nor hast pleasure in them,” 
(which are presented according to the law;) [and] then saith, 
** Lo! I come to do thy will;” he abolisheth the first, that he 
may establish the second. By this will, expiation is made 
for us, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once 
for all. 

Now every priest standeth, performing daily service, and 
oftentimes presenting the same sacrifices which can never take 
away sin; but this one, having once offered a perpetual sacri- 
fice for sin, sat down at the right hand of God, thenceforth 
waiting until his enemies be made his footstool. By one 
offering, then, he hath fully accomplished, for ever, what was 
needed by those for whom expiation is made. 

Moreover, the Holy Spirit also testifieth this to us ; for after 
saying, “ This is the covenant which I will make with them, 
after those days, saith the Lord, I will write my laws upon 
their hearts, and engrave them upon their minds,” then {he 
saith,] “ Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no 
more.’ But where there is remission of these, there is no 
more offering for sin. 

Exhortation to perseverance, from a consideration of the faithfulness of God, of the 
severe doom of apostatgs, and of the sutferings which the Hebrew Christians 
had already endured for the sake of religion. 

Having then, brethren, free access to the sanctuary, by 
the blood of Jesus, in a new and living way, which he hath 





HEBREWS x. 21- xr. 2. 259 


21 consecrated through the veil, (that is, his flesh 3) and 
22 [having] also a high priest over the house of God; let us 
approach in full confidence, with a true heart, being purified 
as to our hearts from a consciousness of evil. Being cleansed, 
23 also, as to our bodies, with pure water, let us hold fast with- 
out wavering the hope which we profess; for faithful is he 
24 who hath promised. Let us, moreover, attentively regard one 
25 another, for the sake of exciting to love and good works ; not 
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom 
of some is,) but admonishing [one another ;] and this so much e 
the more, as ye see the day approaching. 
26 Moreover, should we voluntarily sin, after having received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice 
27 for sin; but a certain fearful expectation of punishment, yea, 
of fiery indignation which will consume the adversaries. 
28 Whosoever transgressed the law of Moses, suffered death 
29 without mercy, in case of two or three witnesses; of how 
much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, 
who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and regarded the 
blood of the covenant by which he hath been consecrated as 
30 unclean, and done despite to the Spirit of grace! Surely we 
know him, who hath said, “ Vengeance is mine, I will render 
it,” saith the Lord; and again, “ The Lord will judge his 
31 people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the 
living God. ’ 
32 Call to mind, now, the former days, in which, after ye were 
33 enlightened, ye endured a great contest with sufferings ; partly 
because ye were made a public spectacle both by reproaches 
and afflictions, and partly because ye had sympathy with those 
34 who were thus treated. For ye did truly sympathize with 
those who were prisoners, and cheerfully suffer the plundering 
of your own substance, knowing that ye have for yourselves a 
39 better possession in heaven, yea, one which is enduring. Cast 
not away, then, your confidence, which will obtain a great 
reward. 
36 =©©Ye have need, it is true, of patient waiting, in order that, 
when ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the pro- 
37 mised blessing. Yet a very little while, nevertheless, and 
38 “ he who is coming will come, and will not delay.” ‘‘ The 
just,” also, “ shall live by faith;” but, “ If any man draw 
39 back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.’’ We, however, are 
not of those who draw back unto destruction: but of those 
who believe unto the salvation of the soul. 
Description of faith, and of the effects of it in respect to the saints of ancient 
times. . 
XI. Now, faith is confidence in respect to things hoped for, [and] 
2 canvincing evidence of things not seen. On account, of this, 
moreover, the ancients obtained commendation. 
s2 


260 HEBREWS Xx. 3—2!. 


i 


8 


3 


10 
11 


12 


13 
14 
15 
16 


17 
18 
19 


20 
21 


By faith we perceive, that the worlds were formed by the 
word of God, so that the things which are seen, were not 
made from those which do appear. 

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, on 
account of which he was commended as righteous, God him- 
self bestowing commendation upon his oblations; and by the 
same, though dead, he still speaketh. 

By faith Enoch was translated, without seeing death, and 
“he was no more found, because God had translated him.’’ 
He is commended, also, as “‘ having pleased God,” before his 
translation. But without faith it is impossible to please him; 
for he who cometh unto God, must believe that he is, and that 
he will reward those who seek him. 

By faith Noah, being divinely admonished respecting the 
future, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety of his 
household, by which he condemned the world, and obtained 
the justification which is by faith. 

By faith Abraham obeyed, when called to go forth unto the 
place which he was to receive for a possession ; yea, he went 
forth not knowing whither he was going. By faith he so- 
journed in the land of promise, while it belonged to strangers, 
dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs of the 
same promise: for he expected a city which hath foundations, 
whose builder and maker is God. By faith also, Sarah herself 
received the power of conception, and this beyond the cus- 
tomary season of life, inasmuch as she counted him to be 
faithful who had promised. Wherefore there sprang, even 
from one who was dead too as to these things, [a seed] like 
the stars of heaven for multitude, and like the sand on the 
shore of the sea, which cannot be numbered. 

These all died in faith, not having received the promised 
blessings; but seeing them afar off, and hailing them with 
joy, they professed themselves to be strangers and sojourners 
on the earth. Now, they who thus profess, shew that they are 
in quest of a country; for if they had cherished the remem- 
brance of that from which they came, they had opportunity to 
return thither. But now they were desirous of a_ better 
[country], that is, of a heavenly one. Wherefore God is not 
ashamed of them, [nor] to be called their God; for he hath 
prepared a city for them. 

By faith Abraham, when put to trial, made an offering of 
Isaac; yea, he who had received the promises made an offering 
of his only son; unto whom it had been said, “ After Isaac 
shall thy seed be named ;” counting that God was able to raise 
him even from the dead, whence also, comparatively, [speak- 
ing], he obtained him. 

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, in regard to the 
future. By faith Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of 


» 


ee 


HEBREWS xX. 22—40. 261 


Joseph’s sons, and bowed himself upon the top of his staff. 


2 By faith Joseph, at the close of life, made mention of the 


departure of the children of Israel [from Egypt], and gave 
commandment respecting his own bones. 

By faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three 
months by his parents, because they saw that he was a goodly 
child, and did not fear the king’s commandment. By faith 
Moses, when arrived at mature age, refused to be called the 
son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction 
with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for 
a season; counting reproach, such as Christ endured, to be 
greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt; for he had 
respect to a state of reward. By faith he left Egypt, not 
fearing the anger of the king; for he continued stedfast, as 
one who seeth him that is invisible. By faith he observed the 
passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that he who destroyed 
the firstborn might not touch them. 

By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as on dry land; 
which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. By faith 
the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed 
about for seven days. 

By faith Rahab, the harlot, having entertained the spies in 
a friendly manner, perished not with the unbelieving. 

And what shall I say more? For time would fail me, 
should I tell of Gideon, of Barak also, and Samson, and 
Jephtha, of David too, and Samuel, and the prophets; who, 
through faith, subdued kingdoms, executed justice, obtained 
promised blessings, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched 
the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made 
strong from a state of infirmity, became mighty in war, over- 
threw the armies of foreigners. Women recovered their dead 
by a resurrection. Some were tortured, not accepting a 
deliverance, in order that they might attain to a better resur- 
rection. Others were tried by mockings and scourges, and 
also by bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they 
were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the 
murderous sword, they went about in sheep-skins and goat- 
skins, suffering want, afflicted, injuriously treated, (of whom 
the world was not worthy), wandering around in deserts and 
mountains, in caves also and dens of the earth. 

All these, moreover, who are commended on account of 
their faith, did not receive the promised blessing ; God hav- 
ing provided some better thing for us, so that without 
us they could not obtain a full accomplishment of what was 
needed. 


262 HEBREWS xil. 1—19. 


Encouragement to persevere. Trials must not dishearten, for God sends them in 
kindness to his children, The gospel holds out more that is cheering and encou- 
raging, than the law. The voice of its author must not be slighted. 


XII. Since now we are encompassed by so great a multitude of 
witnesses, laying aside every incumbrance, and especially the 
sin which easily besetteth us, let us run with perseverance 

2 the race which is set before us ; looking unto Jesus, the author 
and perfecter of our faith, who, on account of the joy set before 
him, endured the cross, not regarding shame, and hath sat 
down at the right hand of the throne of God. 

3 Consider, now, him who endured such opposition against 
himself from sinners, lest becoming discouraged in your minds 

4 ye grow weary. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, in your 

5 struggle against sin. And have ye forgotten the exhortation, 
which is addressed to you as children, “‘ My son, do not slight the 
chastenings of the Lord, nor be disheartened when reproved 

6 by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourg- 

7 eth every son whom he receiveth?” If ye endure chastise- 
ment, God is dealing with you as children; for what son is 

8 there, whom his father does not chasten? But if ye are with- 
out chastisement, of which all [children] are partakers, then 
are ye bastards, and not sons. 

9 Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, who have 
chastened us, and we have yielded them reverence; shall we 
not much more yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits. 

10 that we may live? They, indeed, chastened us for a little 
while, according to their own pleasure; but he, for our good, 

11 that we might be made partakers of his holiness. Now, all 
chastening seemeth for the present not to be matter of joy, but 
of grief ; yet afterwards, it yieldeth the happy fruits of righte- 
ousness, to those who are exercised thereby. 

12. Wherefore, “Strengthen the weak hands and the feeble 

13 knees,” and “ Make plain the paths for your feet,” so that 
what is lame may not be wrenched, but rather healed. 

14 Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without 

15 which no man shall see the Lord. See to it, that no one fail 
of the favour of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and 

16 trouble you, and many be defiled thereby. Let there be no 
fornicator, nor profane person, like Esau, who for one morsel 

17 of meat sold his birthright. For ye know, that when he was 
afterwards desirous to obtain the blessing, it was refused ; 
yea, he found no place for a change of mind [in his father, } 
although he sought for it with tears. 

18 Moreover, ye are not come to the mount which could be 
touched, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and darkness, 

19 and tempest; nor to the sound of the trumpet, and the voice 
of commands, the hearers of which refused that another word 


20 


2] 
22 


HEBREWS Xi. 20.—x111. 10. 263 


should be added to them; (for they could not endure the 
admonition, “ If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be 
stoned ;”” and—so terrible was the sight—even Moses said, 
“T fear and tremble :”) but ye are come to mount Zion; and 
to the’ city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; and 
to an innumerable company, the joyful host of angels; and to 
the assembly of the first-born, enrolled in heaven; and to the 
Judge, the God of all; and to the spirits of the just, who 
have obtained their final reward; and to the mediator of the 
new covenant, Jesus; and to the blood of sprinkling, which 
speaketh better things than [the blood of] Abel. 

Take heed, that ye turn not away from him, who speaketh 
to you; for if they did not escape who turned away from him 
who warned them on earth, much more shall we (not escape, ] 
if we slight him who [warneth us} from heaven. His voice 
then shook the earth; but now it is promised, saying, “ Yet 
once more, I will shake not only the earth, but heaven also.” 
Now this “ Yet once more,” denotes a removing of the things 
which are shaken, as of created things, in order that the 
things which are not shaken may remain. 

Wherefore, having obtained a kingdom which cannot be 
shaken, let us manifest gratitude, (by which we may serve 
God acceptably,) with reverence and godly fear. For our 
“God is a consuming fire.” 


Various practical directions and cautions. Closes with affectionate requests and 
salutations. 


XIII. Ler brotherly love continue. Forget not hospitality ; for 


2 
3 


4 


on N 


10 


by this some have entertained angels unawares. Remember 
those who are in bonds, as if ye yourselves were fellow- 
prisoners ; those who are suffering evil, as being yourselves 
yet in the body. Let marriage be honourable among all, and 
the bed undefiled; for whoremongers and adulterers God will 
judge. Let your conduct be free from covetousness, and be 
contented with what ye possess. For he hath said, “I will 
never leave thee, nor forsake thee:” so that we may boldly 
say, “The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid. What 
can man do to me?” ’ 

Remember your leaders, who have spoken unto you the 
word of God; and attentively considering the end of their 
manner of life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, 
yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Be not carried hither and 
thither by diverse and strange doctrines; for it is good that 
the heart should be confirmed by grace, and not by meats, by 
which those have not been profited, who have been occupied 


therewith. We have an altar, of which they have no right to 


eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. 


16 
17 


18 
18) 
20 
21 


22 
23 


24 
25 


HEBREWS XIII. 11—25. 


Moreover, the bodies of those animals, whose blood was 
carried into the sanctuary as a sin-offering by the high priest, 
were burned without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus also, that 
he might make expiation for the people by his own blood, 
suffered without the gate. Let us, then, go forth to him 
without the camp, bearing reproaches like his; for here we 
have no abiding city, but are seeking for one yet future. By 
him, therefore, let us continually present to God the sacrifice 
of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips ascribing praise to his 
name, 

Forget not kindness, also, and liberality; for with such 
sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey your leaders, and be 
subject to them; for they watch over your souls, as those who 
must give an account. [So obey,] that they may do this with 
joy, and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable to you. 

Pray for us; for we trust that we have a good conscience, 
being desirous in all things to demean ourselves uprightly. 
I make this request, also, the more earnestly, in order that I 
may speedily be restored to you. 

Now, may the God of peace, that raised from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, (who by the blood of an everlasting covenant has 
become the great Shepherd of the sheep,) prepare you for every 
good work, that ye may do his will; working in you that 
which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to 
whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

Moreover, I beseech you, brethren, to bear with this word 
of exhortation; for I have written briefly to you. 

Know ye, that our brother Timothy is sent away; with whom 
if he return speedily, I shall visit you. 

Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They of Italy 
salute you. Grace be with you all. Amen. 


265 


COMMENTARY. 


GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


OF THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


° 


THE writer of this epistle is a Hebrew, and addresses his Hebrew 
brethren, who had made a profession of the Christian religion. Nothing 
can be plainer, than that those addressed are considered as being in 
danger of apostacy from that religion. To warn them against this dan- 
ger, is the principal object of our epistle. In order to do this, the writer 
proceeds to lay before them the aggravated guilt, and the awful doom, 
of those who make defection from Christianity; to direct their views 
towards that crown of glory which fadeth not away, and which is reserved 
in heaven for all who persevere, even to the end of life, in their fidelity 
to Christ; to put them on their guard against the various enticements 
of sin, which might allure them from the paths of Christian duty; and 
especially to guard them against relapsing into supersiitious views 
respecting the importance and necessity of the ceremonial rites and 
sacrifices of the Levitical institutions, and against being induced by these 
to relax their confidence in Jesus, and in his atoning sacrifice. 


266 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


It was these last sources of danger, to which the Hebrew Christians 
were particularly exposed. Nothing could well be more magnificent 
and imposing than the temple worship, as practised by the Jews at that 
time. The temple, built after their return from the captivity, was no* 
indeed, so rich in ornament as that which Solomon had built. But © 
had, at a vast expense, been greatly extended and beautified by Herod 
It was regarded by all Jews, as the peculiar dwelling-place of Jehovah— 
the only one in which he deigned to manifest himself on earth. The 
Jewish nation, also, habitually regarded themselves, as the only one to 
whom God had made a special revelation. The worship, practised in the 
temple, had been instituted by Moses, under divine guidance, and con- 
tinued, with but partial interruptions, for about 15V0 years. All the 
exterior of this worship was adapted to strike the eye, and impress the 
mind, of the beholder. The awfulness of the place in which it was 
celebrated ; the magnificent costume of the priests; the spacious and 
lofty apartment in which they officiated ; the solemn part which he who 
offered any sacrifice was himself called to perform; above all, the 
appréhension that full pardon for sin, and reconciliation to God, were 
obtained by the rites and offerings which the law prescribed ; contributed 
to make deep and lasting impressions on the mind of all Hebrews, who 
seriously exercised their thoughts on the subject of religion, and paid 
their devotions in the temple. All their education, from the first dawn- 
ing of the youthful mind, had a direct tendency to confirm and strengthen 
these impressions. Never was a nation more enthusiastically attached to 
its customs, rites, and country, than were the Jews. They looked abroad 
upon other nations, as outcasts from God, and unworthy of his paternal 


kindness and blessing. 


The New Testament is full of evidence, adapted to show the correct- 
ness of this statement. The disputes which the extension of Christian 
privileges to the Gentiles occasioned among the first Jewish converts ; 
the reluctance with which the former were admitted to participate in 
them; and the repeated, violent, and long-protracted opposition that was 
made to abandoning the peculiar rites of the Mosaic institutions; all 
contribute to evince, how deeply engraven upon the mind of every Jew 
was the impression, that the laws of Moses were never to be changed, 
and that the Messiah himself was ratlier to restore and modify, than to 
repeal them. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 267 


In such a state of mind had the Christian converts once been, whom 
the writer of our epistle addressed. What wonder, now, if they were 
exposed from this quarter to be shaken in their attachment to the new 
religion which they had professed, and which confessedly gave up all 
confidence in the religious rites of the Levitical institutions? Tempta- 
tions from without also assailed them. Their unbelieving Hebrew 
brethren argued with them; opposed them; ridiculed them; made 
powerful appeals to all the feelings with which their birth, education, 
and former worship had inspired them; persecuted them; traduced 
them to heathen magistrates ; and excommunicated them. They suffered 
the loss of property, and of liberty. Their lives were threatened. The 
coming of Christ, which they had supposed would speedily take place 
for their deliverance, was delayed. How could it be, that human 
frailty, joined with former prejadices and present sufferings, should not 
have a dangerous influence upon them ? 

In this state the apostle saw them to be, and set himself about the 
important and difficult work of correcting their errors, and encouraging 
their desponding minds. How was this to be done with the greatest 
‘probability of success? Plainly, arguments and considerations, of such 
a nature as were best adapted to meet the difficulties with which they 
were contending, were those to which he would most readily resort. And 
throughout the whole epistle, it is manifest that he has done this, with 
consummate skill, judgment, and force. 

As the greatest of all the dangers to which the Hebrew converts were 
exposed, was that which resulted from their former religious attachments 
and prejudices, excited and augmented, as they daily were, by the 
efforts of their unbelieving Jewish brethren; so the writer of our epistle 
employs his principal force, in order to preclude or avert this danger. 
Other topics are subordinate with him. Although they are often touched 
upon, and with great skill and power, yet they are so interwoven with 
the main object before him, that they are in a measure concealed from the 
first view of a hasty reader. 

The general plan of the epistle may be briefly represented. It consists 
in a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and in pointing 
out the various grounds of preference which belong to the new. From 
this superiority of the new dispensation, various arguments are deduced, 
in order to shew the importance of cleaving to the Christian profession, 
instead of reverting back to Judaism, which could not now be the means 


268 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


of saving those who embraced it. Considerations of such a nature are 
repeated, as often as the comparisons introduced afford occasion for 
them. This accounts for the repetition of hortatory addresses, so often 
found in our epistle. 

The Jews gloried in their dispensation, because angels had been 
employed as mediators of it, when the law was given at Sinai. In their 
view, this stamped a high and heavenly honour upon it. Our author 
does not attack their views of this subject, but he commences his epistle 
by shewing that Christ, the mediator and head of the new dispensation, 
as it regards his name, his rank, his dominion, his creative and eternal 
power, is superior to the angels, chap. i. 1—14. On this ground, then, 
Christianity may claim a precedence; and hence he exhorts them to 
give their most earnest attention to it, chap. ii. 1—4. 

Nor can they object to the superiority of the Messiah, that he pos- 
sessed a human nature, while the angels are spiritual and heavenly 
beings. For in human nature he is Lord of the universe, ch. ii. 5—10. 
It was this nature, too, which gave him a nearer and more endearing sym- 
pathy with his followers; and by taking this upon him, he was enabled 
to make an expiatory offering for sin by his death; so that he is* 
now fitted not only to exercise compassion toward men, but to save 
them from the bondage of sin, and from its condemning power, ch. ii. 
11—18. 

Having thus disposed of this topic, he next proceeds to compare Jesus, 
the head of the new dispensation, with Moses, the head of the ancient 
one. Like Moses, he was set over the house of God, and entrusted with 
it, and was faithful to his trust. But the honour due to Jesus is as much 
more than that due to Moses, as the builder of a house is worthy of more 
honour than the house itself. Christ too was set over God’s house as a 
Son; but Moses only as a servant, ch. ui. 1—6. 

If now the Israelites of old were solemnly admonished to hearken to 
the precepts given under the Mosaic dispensation; then surely believers 
in Christ may be more solemnly urged, to beware of disobedience to his 
injunctions, ch. iii. 7—19. And this warning holds good, and is appli- 
cable in all respects, because the rest which was promised to believers in 
ancient times, and was lost through unbelief, is still proffered to all who 
believe in Jesus and persevere in their profession, and only to believers, 
ch. iv. 1—10. Awful commination is indeed still uttered against those 


who are guilty of apostacy, ch. iv. 11—13. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 269 


Thus much for the comparison of Christ with Moses. Next, the writer 
proceeds to compare Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish priesthood, and 
particularly with the high priest, the most dignified of all who were 
invested with the sacerdotal office. 

He first introduces Christ as a compassionate high priest, and exalted 
to the highest dignity in the heavens, ch. iv. 14—16. Next, he states 
the various things which are attached to the priesthood, as existing 
among the sons of Levi. (1.) A high priest must present oblations and 
sacrifices, ch. v. 1. (2.) He must be compassionate and sympathetic 
towards others, and especially so, as he is himself frail and erring, 
ch. vy. 2, 3. (3.) He must be appointed of God to this office, ch. v. 4. 

In all these respects, he now goes on to make a comparison of Jesus, 
the high priest of Christianity, and to shew his superiority. He shews,— 

First, that Christ was divinely appointed a priest, and that of the 
highest order, ch. v. 5, 6. 

Next, he shews that Christ our great high priest was compassed with 
human infirmity, like other priests, so that, like them, he was fitted to 
exercise compassionate sympathy, ch. v. 7,8. But after he had suffered, 
he was raised to glory and became a high priest of the most exalted 
order, i. e. of the order of Melchisedek, ch. v. 9, 10. 

The difficulty of the subject now suggested, affords an occasion for 
the writer to advert to the state of religious ignorance, in which those 
were whom he addressed, ch. v. 11 —14; to exhort them to come out of 
it, and to warn them against the fearful danger that would result from 
not doing so, ch. vi. 1—8. To this he subjoins commendation as to 
some things, and powerful motives of encouragement, ch. vi. 9—20. 

He now resumes the subject of Melchisedek ; shews the superiority of 
his priesthood over that of the sons of Levi, ch. vii. 1—10; and then 
argues that Christ, who was a perpetual priest of the like order with 
Melchisedek, must of course be superior to the Jewish priests, ch. vii. 
11—25. 

Christ too, as high priest, differed in one important respect from other 
priests, viz. in that he needed no sacrifice for himself, as an erring, sinful 
man, like the sons of Levi, but was sinless and perfect, yea, even exalted 
to a state of supreme glory, ch. vil. 26—28. 

The great object, however, at which the writer is going to aim in the 
sequel of his epistte, is, to shew that the high priest of Christianity offi- 
ciates in heaven for his followers, ch viii 1, 2. The Jewish priests per- 


270 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


form their functions in a temple, which is merely an image of the hea- 
venly one, ch. vill. 3—6. 

The new covenant, of which Jesus is mediator, is altogether superior, 
also, to the old, ch. viii. 6—13. The ordinances and apparatus of ser- 
vice attached to this, were all mere types of heavenly things, ch. ix. 1—10. 
The services themselves were imperfect, as to the end attained by them, 
since they accomplished nothing more than external purification; but the 
blood of Christ sanctifies internally, and procures eternal redemption and 
an everlasting inheritance, for all the chosen of God in every age of the 
world, ch. ix. 11—15, , 

The new testament, which gives an inheritance to the people of God, 
was sanctioned by the death of Jesus, ch. ix. 15. Such is the custom in 
regard to testaments, ch. ix. 16,17. As a symbol of this, even the first 
covenant, (dcaSijxn,) with all the apparatus attached to it, was sanc- 
tioned by blood, i. e. the emblem of death, ch. ix. 18—22. If the 
earthly sanctuary was thus consecrated, then the heavenly one must be 
so, by a sacrifice of a still higher nature, ch. ix. 23, 24. Sacrifices in 
the earthly temple must be often repeated; but the sacrifice of Christ 
did, once for all, accomplish the great purposes for which it was offered, 
ch. ix. 24—28. 

Indeed, no legal sacrifices could make any real atonement for sin, 
ch. x. 1—4. Therefore Christ voluntarily proffered himself as a sin 
offering, entirely and for ever to effect this, ch. x. 5—18. 

Thus is completed the comparison of Christ, and of his functions as a 
priest in the heavenly tabernacle, with the Jewish priests and their func- 
tions in the earthly tabernacle. In all respects, Jesus, the high priest of 
the Christian religion, appears greatly superior. 

The writer now proceeds to various bold and powerful exhortations, 
mixed with awful warnings against defection from the Christian religion, 
ch. x. 19—31. He sets before them the effects of persevering faith, in 
the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished worthies, ch. xi. L—40. 
This he follows up with continued exhortations, and encouragements, 
and warnings, ch. xii. 1—29; and then closes his epistle with divers 
practical directions, cautions, and salutations, ch. xiii. 1—25, 

Such is the brief view of the course of thought and reasoning in our 
epistle. It is plain that there are three great points of comparison in it, 
which constitute the main object at which the writer aims, in order that 
he may show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 271 


“~ 


I. The superiority of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, over 
angels who were employed as mediators, when the old covenant was 
established,—chap. 1. ii, 

II. The superiority of Christ, the head of the new dispensation, over 
Moses, the head of the old,—chap. iii. iv. 

III. The superiority of Christ as high priest of the new dispensation, 
and of the services which he performs, over the priesthood of the Mosaic 
institution, and all the services which were appropriate to their office,— 
eh vs Hse x. 18: 

Exhortations, warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, are intermixed 
in some manner with the main discussions: e. g. ch. ii. 1—4; iii. 1; 
ili. 7—iv. 16; iv. 11—vi. 20; but from ch. x. 19 to the end of the 
epistle, nearly all is of the nature just described ; so that about one half 
of the epistle is of a parenetical or hortatory nature. 

In judging of the relevancy and importance of the subjects discussed 
in our epistle, it is very plain, that we are not to make up an opinion, 
deduced merely from viewing the present necessities and condition of 
Christians. We were not born Jews, nor educated as such. We have 
none of their prejudices, peculiar sympathies, temptations, and trials. 
What was adapted to them, in the days of Paul, and under the circum- 
stances above described; nay, what was absolutely indispensable for 
their instruction, reproof, and confirmation, may, in many respects, be 
scarcely appropriate to us, in our condition and circumstances. Such is 
indeed the fact, in regard to many of the things introduced into the 
epistle to the Hebrews; as I shall have occasion hereafter repeatedly to 
notice. But who, that judges with any good degree of candour and 
fairness, would ever think of bringing it as an accusation against our 
author, that he has inserted in his epistle, that which was altogether 
appropriate to those whom he addressed, although it may not, and does 
not, have an equal bearing upon all times and nations? Surely, the last 
ground of just accusation which can he advanced against any writer, is, 
that ‘‘ he has written in a manner peculiarly adapted to accomplish the 
end for which he wrote.” In what a different plight would the world of 
authors be, if all of them were justly liable to such an imputation ! 

Of necessity, now, many things addressed to the Jews of Paul’s day, 
are comparatively inapplicable to us. So far, however, as our circum- 
stances agree with theirs in any respect, just so far the spirit of what 
was said to them will apply to us. So far as what was said to them was 


272 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS, &C. 


founded in general Christian truths and principles, just so far we may be 
instructed and guided by it. Consequently, as it must follow from these 
positions, the epistie, while it contains many things appropriate to the 
Hebrews of early times, also contains many which can never cease to 
interest the church of God, while Christianity exists in the world. 

These general views may serve to aid the critical student, in com- 
mencing the exegetical study of our epistle. The more particular detail 
of what is here hinted, is reserved for the introductions to various parts 
of the epistle, which are inserted, pro re natd, in the body of the com- 
mentary which follows. 


273 ‘ 


COMMENTARY. 


CONTENTS OF CHAPTERS I. 1—11, 4. 


The object of the writer being to commend Christianity to those whom he addressed, 
in such a manner as to prevent defection from this religion ; he begins by setting forth 
Christ as the author of the new revelation which God had made to men, ch. i.1. He 

_ then touches upon the dignity of his office ; he is Lord of the universe ; which, indeed, 
he also created, ver. 2. He is the true image of God, and the representative of his 
glory and perfections to men; he is endowed with sovereign power ; and having made 
atonement for the sins of men, he is exalted to the highest majesty in the heavens, 
ver. 3. This mediator of the new dispensation is exalted above angels, who were the 
mediators of the ancient one. His name, SON, is more exalted than theirs; for they 
have not been addressed, like him, with such an appellation, ver. 4,5. He is the 
object of worship by the angels; while they are employed only as the swift and ready 
messengers of God, ver. 6,7. The King Messiah has an eternal and righteous 
dominion ; and is elevated, on account of his love of righteousness, to honour and 
happiness above all other kings, ver. 8, 9. Him, too, the sacred writer addresses, as 
the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and as immutable and imperishable, ver. 
10—12. But no exaltation to such dominion is conferred upon angels, ver. 13; they 
are only ministerial agents, employed for the good of those who are to be heirs of the 
salvation which Christ bestows, ver. 14. 

If such be the dignity and elevation of the Messiah, then, surely he may justly 
demand the attentive consideration of all which he addresses to his followers. Obedi- 
ence to the ancient revelation was enforced by just and unavoidable penalties ; how can 
the neglect of the new and more perfect one go unpunished? ch. ii. 1, 2. Especially 
must this be the case, since it was promulgated by Christ himself in person, and was 
confirmed, on the part of God, by a great variety of wondrous miracles, ver. 3, 4. 


CHAP. I 


‘H mpdc ‘Efpaiove exiorod). See, on this title, § 10. p. 35, seq. 

1. Todupepiic kat rodurpérwe, literally in various parts and in various 
ways. Of the Greek commentators, some give a different sense to each 
of the words; e. g. Theodoret, zoAuvpepc—rac mayrocamic olKOvopine 
onpaiver, TO Ce TouTPOTWC, THY Deiwy OrracwWy TO CLapopor, 1. &. ToAUpLEPwS 
signifies the various dispensations, and ohurpdrw¢ the diversity of 
divine visions. Theophylact interprets the words in question, by c.agdpwg 

4) 


274 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1. I. 


kai rodvewdec, diversely, and in various ways. But Chrysostom expresses 
the sense of both words, by diadépwe simply. Modern commentators are 
divided in the same manner. The Greek idiom allows either mode of 
interpretation ; and precedents may be found for each. See Schleusner 
on the words; and compare Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 4. p. 331; V. p. 667, 
ed. Potter. If the two words be construed separately, then zodvpepvc 
should be interpreted as referring to the matter of ancient revelation, 
given in different parts and at different times, thus conveying the idea 
of the gradual development of truth in different ages and by different 
persons; and zodvurpdézwe must be understood as indicating the various 
ways in which these revelations were communicated, i.e. by dreams, 
visions, symbols, Urim and Thummim, prophetic ecstacy, &c. But if 
both words are regarded, as being used only to designate with intensity 
the variety of ancient revelations, (and such a mode of phraseology is 
very common both in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures,) then the whole 
may be paraphrased thus: ‘‘ God, who in ancient times made communi- 
cations, in many different ways, by the prophets to the fathers, hath,” 
&c. The word zodupepwc does not, of itself, signify sundry times; but 
still, the idea of various parts or portions, which it does properly signify, 
may very naturally be understood as implying diverse times at which, 
or occasions on which, the different parts of revelation were communi- 
cated; or the idea of zodvpep@c may be simply that of repetition, so 
that often would well communicate the sense of it. In this way I have 
ventured to translate it. 

Of the two modes of interpreting these words, I rather prefer that 
which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each. The writer 
evidently designs to present an antithesis between the manner of the 
ancient and the Christian dispensation. This antithesis is rendered more 
striking, if we understand the first clause in the verse thus: ‘ God, who 
in ancient times made communications to the fathers by the prophets, in 
sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revelation to us by 
his Son;” i. e. he has completed the whole revelation, which he intends 
to make under the new dispensation, by his Son, by his Son only, and 
not by a long continued series of prophets, as of old. The apostles, 
and other inspired writers of the New Testament, received their com- 
munications from the Son, who gave them the Holy Spirit, Matt. xi. 27, 
comp. John xiv. 26; xvi. 13; and facts shew, that the Christian revela- 
tion was completed, during that géneration who were contemporary with 
the Saviour, when he dwelt on earth. 


COMMEN'TARY ON HEB. I. I. 275 


Tada, in ancient times ; for communications by prophets to the Jews 
had ceased, from the time of Malachi and his contemporaries, i. e. for 
the space of about four hundred years. Hence, the writer avoids using 
an expression which would imply, that revelations had been continued 
down to the time then present. By rada, he evidently means to 
designate the whole time, during which communications of the Divine 
will were continued under the former dispensation. 

Aadjoag most commonly designates oral communication. But since 
the writer here affirms, that God had spoken (AaAjoac) roduTporwe, it 
must of course be understood (as indeed it is often used) to designate 
the more general idea of communication made in any manner, by visions, 
symbols, &c. as well as by voices. 

Toic warpdow, ancestors; see Wahl’s Lex. We might naturally 
expect that fy would be subjoined; but Paul commonly uses the 
word warépec in the sense just noted, without the pronoun annexed. 
See Rom. ix. 5; x1. 28; xv. 8. 

"Ev roic mpoghracc, by the prophets. The use of év with the dative, 
instead of dia with the genitive, is frequent in the New Testament; as 
any one may see in Wahl’s Lexicon, éy no. 3.a. The frequent use 
of it, in this way, is a Hebraism; for év corresponds to the Hebrew 3, 
which is employed with great latitude of signification, and in cases of the 
same nature as that in question; e. g. Hosea i. 2, the word of the Lord 
by Hosea, YW. But an occasional use of éy in a similar way, by 
native Greek writers, may also be found; e.g. Thucyd. VII. 11, what 
has been done before, ye know, év dddatg wOAAaiC Extsoaic, by many 
other letters. 

Tpogyrac, in the language of the New Testament, means, not only 
those who predict future events, but all who were employed by God, as 
the medium of making religious communications of any kind to his 
people. 

"Ex éoyarou ray fyepwy, in many copies én’ éoyarwy roy ipeodv. The 
LXX. use both forms of expression, as a translation of the Hebrew 
DONT DOS ; thus showing that they were regarded by them as 
synonymes. It is a matter of indifference, as to the sense of the text, 
which reading is adopted. 

The meaning of the phrase is best understood, from a comparison 
of the corresponding expressions in Hebrew. In the Old Testament, 
DVT INN, NIT, JIN, and PIN BY, are often employed 
synonymously ; and all of them to designate the general idea of here- 

T2 


276 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 1}. 


after, at a future time, in the sequel. Whether this future time be 
more or less remote, depends entirely on the context, and scope of the 
passage. See Gen. xlix. 1. Numb. xxiv. 14. Deut. iv. 30. Prov. 
xxxt 25, But DDT YIN, in particular, is used to denote the 
future period in which the Messiah (6 épxspevoc) was to appear ; 
Isa. 1. 2. Hos. iti. 5. Micah iv. 1. Joel in. 1, [Eng. i. 28,] JINN: 
This phrase (as it would seem from the usage in these places) early 
passed into a kind of technical designation of the time of the Messiah, 
or rather of the new dispensation under him. Thus Rabbi Nachmanides, 
on Gen. xlix. 1, says, ‘‘ All our doctors agree, that DVT FIN means, 
the times of the Messiah.’ That such a use of the phrase in question, 
was already an established one, in the time of our Saviour, is abundantly 
evident, from the frequency with which ai éeyarau tpépar is employed in 
the New Testament, to designate the period of the Christian dispensation. 
Like other appellations, acquired in a similar way, (comp. Luke vii. 20,) 
it continued to be employed, after the ‘last days,” i.e. the Christian 
dispensation, had commenced ; and it is employed to designate any part 
of the time which this dispensation comprises: being limited only by 
the context, in the same manner, as the Hebrew DYT SIN &c. as 
exhibited above. In John vi. 39, 40. 44. 54, and xi. 24, éoxdirn Hpeépa is 
indeed used to denote the end of time, when the resurrection of the dead 
will take place. But, in each of these cases, avasjow or dvasacte accom- 
panies it, so as to save all doubt in respect to its meaning. In all other 
cases, it designates the period of the new dispensation. Many 
synonymous expressions are also employed, to designate the same 
idea: e.g. 6 EoxaTog Kaipdc, ol EoyaToL Katpol,  éoyaTn pa, and 
Usepor Katpol. 

The Jews, it is said, divided the periods of the world into Tit Doi. 
the present age or world, i.e. the period of the Mosaic dispensation, and 
RAT DoT, the age or world to come, i. e. the time of the Messiah’s 
reign. "The former is called, in the New Testament, 6 aiwy ovroc, 6 viv 
aiwy TOU Koopou ToUTOU, O alwy O évEcTwE, kawpoc ovroc, and 6 aiwy: the 
latter, 6 aiwy 6 péd\wv— Epy Opevoc—Exeivoc, ol dudvEc ETEpXOpeEvoL, 1) OiKOU- 
pévn iy péddovoa. This latter class of expressions, thus understood, are 
equivalent to the phrases écyarac hpépar, Ecxarwy tpeooy, &C. 

Such is the representation of Wahl, (on the word aiwy, in his Lexicon,) 
of Brettschneider (Lex.), and of other critics, in regard to this subject. 
But that it is too definitely made, and therefore not in all respects well 
founded, is quite clear from the very authority to which Wahl refers ; 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 1. 277 


« &. Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. sub voc. Drip. The Rabbins certainly used 
iT poy for mundus hic, mundus habitabilis ; also for mundus medius, 
i. e. the regions of the air, stars, firmament, &c.; and for mundus supre- 
mus, i.e. of angels and spirits. It is equally certain, that they employed 
Naid poy for mundus post resurrectionem mortuorum, mundus anima- 
rum a corpore solutarum, as well as for the age of the Messiah. Bux- 
torf merely says, “‘ Quidam per RAM poly intelligent TWIST ND), dies 
Messiae.” It would seem, then, that Wahl and Brettschneider have 
made an excessive use of the supposed Rabbinic sense of the word air. 

Be this, however, as it may; from the Old Testament usage we may 
easily make out (as I have endeavoured to do,) the sense of éx’ éoydrov 
tov pepwv. The phrase, in Heb. i. 1, appears tomean, during the last 
dispensation, or, under the last period, viz. that of the Messiah. 

Totrwy, THESE last days, is as much to say, ‘* The period in question 
has already commenced.” 

‘Hyiy, to us, by a Koivwotc, 1. e, a figure of speech, or mode of speak- 
ing, in which the writer joins himself with those whom he addresses. 
The meaning is, to Christians, to the church; not excluding others, but 
intending still to designate, in this place, particularly himself and those 
to whom he wrote. So Luke uses fipiy for Christians, in chap. i. 1 
and Paul, in like manner, often, in his epistles. 


*Ey vig, 1. €. Cut Tov viov. So Chrysostom and Theophylact; for éy 
here is used as above, in éy rote rpopyrace. That the article would be 
added to vio here, if the phrase was constructed according to the com- 
mon usage of the Greek language, and of the New Testament writers, is 
quite obvious ; although I find none of the modern commentators who 
take notice of it. In accordance with this principle, both Chrysostom 
and Theophylact supply it in their paraphrase, expressing the sense by 
eva tov viov. After all the rules which have been laid down respecting 
the insertion or omission of the article in Greek, and all the theories 
which have been advanced, he who investigates for himself, and is guided 
only by facts, will find not a little that 1s arbitrary in the actual use of 
it. The cases are certainly very numerous, where Greek writers insert 
or reject it at pleasure. What is this but an arbitrary use of it? Some 
very sensible remarks on this subject may be found, in Lawrence’s 
Remarks on our English Version. 

It is plain, in the present case, that vid is monadic ; that it designates 
one individual peculiarly distinguished ; and that the pronoun aizoi is 
omitted after it; on all which accounts, (according to theory,) the 


278 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 2. 


article should be added. But all the Codices of the New Testament 
agree in omitting it. The circumstance is in itself of but little import- 
ance; still, as it has an important bearing upon theories which respect 
the use of the article, it well deserves particular notice. 

Perhaps vig, in this case, may be employed as a kind of proper name, 
(just as we now use it;) and on this account it omits the article, by a 
license usual in respect to proper names, 

Some distinguished commentators have maintained, that the sentiment 
of Heb. i. 1, is in direct opposition to the opinion commonly received by 
the Christian fathers, and still very generally maintained, viz. that the 
Son of God made all the revelations to the ancient prophets; and that 
all the theophanies, mentioned in the Old Testament, are to be aseribed 
to the Logos. These commentators suppose their own views, in opposi- 
tion to the sentiment of those fathers, to be confirmed by Heb. il. 1—4; 
where the aggravated guilt of those who reject the gospel, which was 
revealed by the Son of God, is urged; and the writer grounds the fact 
of its being aggravated upon the assumption that the law, in ancient 
times, was spoken only by the mediation of angels. But still, though 
this reasoning seems to be satisfactory at first view, it should be remem- 
bered that the writer is there, as well as in Heb, i. 1, speaking of the 
Son of God as incarnate, as possessing our nature, and addressing us in 
it. In this manner he did not address the church, in ancient times; and 
the emphasis may lie upon this circumstance. Comp. John i. 14. For, 
that the Logos, or Christ in his divine nature, did make revelations to 
the ancient church, seems to be an obvious deduction from John xii. 
41. 1 Cor. x. 9; x. 4, and other like passages. 

2. “Ov ence kAnpovomov ravrwy, whom he has constituted lord of all, 
i. e. of the universe. "ESnxe, constituted, appointed, ordained; see Wahl 
on riSnu, no. 3. In the same sense the Greeks employ réSnpu. 

KAnpovopoy, lord, possessor, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom. 
In classic Greek, cAnpordpoe is (1.) One who acquires any thing by lot ; 
(2.) One who inherits any thing after the death of the possessor. The 
Son inherited the universe in neither of these ways; consequently 
KAnpovdjiog here is employed in the manner of the Hebrew wy, which 
means, to take into possession in any manner, or simply to acquire. 
Yo inherit is only a secondary sense of wy. The Latins employed 
haeres, in a sense like that here assigned to «Anpovdpoc. Thus Justinian, 
Inst. II. 19. § ult., Pro haerede gerere, est pro domino gerere; veteres 
enim haeredes pro dominis appellabant. So Festus, Haeres apud anti- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 2. 279 


quos pro domino ponebatur. Comp. Gal. iv. 1; Acts x. 46. ii. 36; 
Ps. Ixxxix. 27 [28]; John xvii. 10; which confirm the interpre- 
tation here given, as to the correctness of the sentiment which it 
conveys. 

"Ac 05, by whom. It is contended here da is not limited to signify 
the znstrumental cause (so called), but that it often designates the 
principal cause. ‘This is true; see Wahlon cia, 1. c. where both the 
classical and New Testament usage of dra, in this sense, is shewn. But 
there is still a poosibility of the sense which Grotius gives it here, viz. 
on account of whom; see Wahl, no. 2., and to the instances there 
adduced of éca used with the genitive, and signifying on account of, add 
Rom. v. 19, bis. viii. 3; and perhaps 2 Cor. ix. 13; and 2 Pet. i. 3, da 
ccénc. In all these cases, however, dra does not properly denote the 
jinal cause or end for which a thing is done; but only a motive for 
doing it, an instrument, as it were, in bringing it about. To say, that 
the worlds were made on account of the Son, as the final end or object 
of them, would imply something more, or something different from say- 
ing, that they were made by him. The sense which Grotius puts upon 
dua cannot be defended by any examples sufficiently plain, and cogent 
enough to justify the admission of it. 

Tove aidvac éroince, he, [i. e. Sedc] made the worlds, or the universe. 
So, beyond any reasonable doubt, aiévec is to be understood in xi. 3, 
and in 1 Tim.i. 17. The singular (aiwy) is not employed to designate 
world. The classical use of aiwy is (1.) Age, period of time. (2.) Age 
of man, time of life. Ai@vac, then, is used here, (like poy, py, 
in the Chaldee and the later Hébrew), for world, worlds, universe. 
Theodoret explains it as meaning ages ; and so others have since done. 
But what is the sense of the assertion, that God made the ages by his 
Son? Ifwe understand this of the common periods of the life of man; 
or (with Theodoret) of the ages of the world; or of the Jewish and 
Christian dispensations, with others ; what is it to the writer’s purpose 
to assert this, in a passage which is evidently designed to shew the 
exalted pre-eminence of the Son of God. As to the sentiment conveyed 
by the interpretation which I have adopted, viz. he made the worlds, it 
is confirmed by Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 15—19. Johni. 3,10. 1 Cor. 
vill. 6. Heb. i.10. See Excursus I. II. n 

3. "Oc dy arabyacpa rije Cdéne Kat XApaKTHP Tig UVrocracewe avrTov. 
Yhe ancient Greek commentators, and after them most of the modern 
ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. An 


280 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1. 2. 


examination of the imagery which they present is necessary, in order to 
develop their real meaning. 

"Aravyacpa means radiance, light flowing from a luminous body, 
and is a derivate of aravyalw i. q. avyagw, to shine, to emit splendour. 
Agta, in classical Greek, means (1.) Opinion, sentiment, supposition, 
maxim. (2.) Fame, honour, reputation. But in our text, it plainly 
means the same as the Hebrew VBE) often does, viz. splendour, bright- 
ness. Comp. Luke ii.9; ix. 31. Acts xxii. 11; vii. 55, Matt. vi, 29. 
aor, xy.4 1. 

Xepaxrijp is properly an engraving or stamping instrument, or, a 
person who engraves or stamps. But it is very commonly employed for 
the figure itself, or wnage engraved or stamped, e. g. upon coins, 
stones, metal, wood, or wax. So our English version, express image, i.e. 
image expressed or stamped. Hence, because the resemblance between 
the figure enstamped, and the instrument by which it is enstamped, is 
so exact, xapaxrijo means also, exact image, resemblance, or deline- 
ation. 

'Yxdoractc, in the classical sense anciently attached to it, means, (1-) 
Foundation, substratum, substructio. (2.) Steadfastness, courage. 
(3.) Purpose, resolution, determination. (4.) Substance, essence, being. 
In the sense of person, it first began to be used by the Greek writers 
after the Arian controversy commenced. It was employed particularly 
in this way by Athanasius, in order that he might make a distinction 
between obcia and vrdcracic, while he maintained that the persons 
(xpoowra) in the Trinity were of one ovsia, but yet were three 
trooracec. The sense of person, then, being attached to this word long 
after the New Testament was written, it cannot be properly assigned 
to the word here. It plainly retains the more ancient meaning of sub- 
stance or essence. 

The nature of the imagery, presented by the two phrases in our 
verse, may be thus explained. If God be represented to us under the 
image of splendour, of a luminary, the source of light; then is Christ 
the radiance of that splendour, or the light emitted from that luminary. 
That is, as a luminous body becomes perceptible in consequence of the 
light radiated from it; so God has manifested or exhibited himself to us, 
in the person of his Son. To the same purpose, John says, ‘*‘ No man 
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the 
bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him,” John i, 18. So again, 
‘He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” ch. xiy. 9; and again, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1, 3. 281 


“« He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me,” ch. xii. 45. In Col. i. 15, 
Christ is called ‘the image of the invisible God,” i. e. he by whom 
the invisible God is, as it were, presented to our inspection. In him, 
God has exhibited to men the perfections of his character, i. e. has 
exhibited 7ijy cogay abrév, which word is figuratively used to designate 
the divine perfections. So 2 Cor. iv. 6, d&je¢ rod Scot év zpocwrw ’Inaod 
Xptorov, 1. e. the divine perfections as displayed by Jesus Christ; a 
phrase of the like nature with that which I am endeavouring to explain. 

Again: if God be represented under the image of trdcrace, sub- 
stance, essence, then is Christ the development of that substance to our 
view; he is the image, representation, or delineation of it. As an 
image upon a coin presents the exact lineaments of the stamp which 
made it; so does Christ present the yapaxrjo of the Father, he presents 
us with his likeness, i. e. reveals to us, in his person and work, just and 
proper views of the perfections of the Father. So, the old Syriac Ver- 
sion renders irdaracte abrov by 920 2a], 1 e. his substance. 

That both expressions are to be understood figuratively, is beyond 
all doubt; for God is not, in a literal sense, splendour or a luminous 
substance ; nor is his trdoracc, in itself considered, i. e. physically or 
metaphysically considered, capable of being represented to our senses. 

In the opinion, that the verse now under consideration relates to the 
fnearnate Messiah, and not to the Logos in his divine nature simply 
considered, I find that Scott and Beza concur, not to mention others of 
the most respectable commentat rs. See Excursus III. 

Dépwy . . . rije Ovvapewc avrov, sustaining, 1. e. guiding, managing, 
controlling, the universe by his own powerful word. So Chrysostom 
ptpwy, Tovréore KUBEpYGY, Ta OLaTinrovTa ouvyKpar@y, governing, holding 
together that which is ready to fall asunder, or preserving that which 
is ready to perish. So Paul says of Christ, as exxwy tov Seov, that he 
is before all things kat ra ravra év aitw ovvéornxe, Col. i. 17. Pépwr, 
thus employed, corresponds to the Hebrew NW, as used in Isa. xlvi. 3; 
Ixvi. 9, in the sense of curo, conservo, to sustain and preserve, as a 
mother does her child. The Greeks sometimes joined ¢épew and étyeuv 
in the same phrase, in order to express the administration of affairs. 
Ta zwavra is a common expression in Greek for the universe. 

Te pryeare Tije cuvapewe abrov, his own powerful word. Such a mode 
of expression is not, as Ernesti names it, properly a Hebraism; for it is 
very common in all languages, although more frequent in the Oriental 
than in the Occidental tongues. Adbrov, sc. Eavrov (not abrod) that is, 


282 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 4, 


by his own powerful word, viz. the word of the Son, and not by the 
word of God, as aivod would mean. The meaning of the whole phrase 
is, “‘ He directs and controls ~the universe by his omnipotent word.” 
It seems to be evidently an expression of the like nature with “‘ God 
said, Let there be light, and there was light,” Gen. i. 3; also, ‘“‘ He 
spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast,” Psa. 
xxxill. 9. In other terms, the Son has the universe at the control of 
his mere word; an expression signifying omnipotent, irresistible con- 
trol. But inasmuch as the universe was created by him (ver. 2,) it 
surely cannot appear strange that he who made it should control it. 

Ai Eavrov....T@y dpapridy har, having by himself made expiation 
for our sins. KaSapopo¢ usually means purification ; but in Hellenistic 
Greek, it is also employed for expiation; e. g. in Exod. xxix. 36, xxx. 
10, the LXX. use it for the Hebrew DY WDD, atonement, expiation. 
That caSapiopoy cannot be used here in the simple sense of purification 
by moral means, such as doctrine, &c. is evident from its being joined 
with oi Eavrov ; which is explained in ch. ii. 14, by dua rod Oavarod ; in 
ch. ix. 12, by Oe TOU iciov aiaroe 5 and in ch. ix. 26, by due Tie Ouciae 
atrov. This last expression I regard as the full form, expressing what is 
elliptically expressed in our text by di Eavroo. 

After he had thus by the sacrifice of himself made expiation for sin, 
éxaSioey év Oeka THe peyarwovrnc év viyroie; he sat down at the right 
of the majesty on high, i. e. of God in the highest heavens, ovpavore 
being understood after vndoic; or, of supreme majesty; (see Wahl 
Lex. on oipayoc.) The verb éxafice here corresponds to the Hebrew 
2", which, applied to God, and to kings, does not mean simply fo sif, 
but to sit enthroned, to sit on a throne; e. g. Ps. ii. 4, and often. To 
sit on a throne, or, to sit at the right hand of one on a throne, implies 
here, commanding, ruling, judging. 

Meyahwovrnc, majesty, magnificence, IVVIN; 273; mt. . Here it is 
the abstract (as grammarians say) used for the papers i.e, on the right 
hand of the majestic One, or the magnificent One, viz. asletal TON, >. 
So Liber Enochi, (Fabricii Cod. Pseudep. V. T. p. 187 ,) évorioy rije 
CdEne Tic peyadwoivnc. See Excursus IV. 

4, Toooitw kpeirrwy .... dvopa, being exalted as much above the 
angels, as he has obtained an appellation more honourable than they. 
Kpeitrwy, praestantior, augustior, of higher rank cr place, eminentior. 
Tevépevoc, constituted, rendered, &c. It is here applied to the elevation 
of the Son to the mediatorial throne, after his death. Atagopwrepor, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 5. 283 


more eminent, more distinguished; map uvrovc, than they, i.e. the 
angels. Tapa, after the comparative degree, appears to be peculiar to 
this epistle. It makes of itself a comparative degree, as used in Rom. 
1.25; xiv. 5. Heb. i. 9; ii. 7. KexAnpovéunxe, obtained, acquired, as 
in ver. 2. “Ovoua, either name, i.e. title, as vide, or rank, dignity. 
Commentators are divided in opinion, respecting which of these meanings 
should be preferred. But the argument, in the sequel, shows that the 
title, SON, is the ground on which the superiority of Christ over the 
angels is proved. If it be objected, that angels are also called sons ; and 
men too; the answer is easy. No one individal, except Jesus, is ever 
called, by way of eminence, THE SON of God, i. e. the Messiah, or the 
King of Israel, John i. 49. 

The appeal is here made to Jewish readers of the Old Testament, who 
applied Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii. 14, to the Messiah. In such a sense 
as in these passages, namely, one that imported supreme dominion and 
authority, neither angels nor men were called sons of God. But Jesus bore 
this title, which, according to the Jewish Scriptures, was indicative of 
supreme dignity; and, consequently, he had an appellation of a more ex- 
alted nature than that of the angels, who are servants, (ch. i. 14,) not lords. 

5. Tui yap....yeyevynxa oe, for to which of the angels said he at 
any time, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee? TVeyévynxa 
oe must of course be figuratively understood. But how? In Ps. ii. the 
context shews that the expression here quoted has reference to Christ as 
king, as constituted king or lord over all; see ver. 6, 8, &c. To beget, 
is metaphorical language suited to the name Son; but as Son here 
plainly means Messiah, or the anointed king, dropping the metaphor, 
we come of course to the meaning, constituted, made, appointed, or 
yevopevoc as above. 

In regard to ofpepov, which has been often construed as meaning, 
from eternity, Theodoret has plainly expressed its true sense; ov rijv 
aiwviov Ondot yévynow, adrA Tiy TO xpovy auvelevypévny, tt does not 
express his eternal generation, but that which ts connected with time. 
For surely Christ was exalted to the mediatorial throne in time, i. e. after 
his resurrection; and such an exaltation is the subject of description, in 
the second Psalm. Such a view of the meaning the context also demands, 
where his acquired condition is the particular subject of comparison with 
the rank and condition of the angels. So Chrysostom, after quoting 
ver. 5, says, Tatra cipynra pe eic ry odpKa, this is spoken concerning his 
human nature. 


94 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 6. 


"Ey Ecopat.... etc vidy. In common Greek it would be, éyw Eocopat 
mario avrov..,,vioc pov. The form of expression, avr@ cic marépa, cor- 
responds altogether to the Hebrew aN? 5; and puot gic viov to 2? %, 
2 Sam. vii. 14, whence the quotation is taken. The term Son seems 
here to designate one who should be entitled to all the rights and pri- 
vileges of a Son; and in particular, one whe should be an heir to the 
throne of his Father. This same figurative expression, heirship, being 
heir, the writer has applied to the Son in-the context, ver. 2.4. Now, 
as the angels are not entitled to such privileges, the appellation Son, 
(which implies a right to them in this case,) shows that he to whom it is 
applied, is elevated above the angels. And this is the position, which 
the argument in Heb. i. is designed to establish. 

If we may credit Abarbanel, the ancient Jewish doctors held that the 
Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. 
However this may be, the apostle, in applying this and the following 
quotations to the Messiah, must have supposed himself addressing 
those, who would readily concede that they ought to be thus applied. 
Otherwise, we cannot suppose that he could have regarded this mode 
of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom 
he wrote. 

Ver. 6. “Oray C& waduy o.0- Ever, again also, when he bringeth his 
Jirst-begotten into the world, he saith ; a passage replete with difficulties. 
Does wad qualify cicaydyn? Or is it to be transposed thus, radu ce, 
dray, x.7..¢ Many contend for this transposition ; and Abresch cites 
what he calls similar instances of a metathesis, in Acts xii. 27. 1 Cor. 
iv. 18; 2Cor. vii.6. These, however, come short of establishing his 
position. Admitting the transposition in question, we must translate 
mad, k. 7. X. by again, i. e. in another passage of scripture, when he 
introduces, &c. But this transposition is unnecessary, even if the sense 
here given to ré\w be retained ; for we may translate equally well, but when, 
in another place, he introduces, &c. One might translate wddu here, 
(with Storr, Wahl, and others,) on the other hand, on the contrary, 
i, e. God speaks in quite a different way to the angels, when he intro- 
duces his first begotten into the world, viz. instead of calling them sons, 
he commands them to worship his Son. See Wahl’s Lex. on radu. 
So Schneider, wédw, im Gegentheile, (ex adverso,) specially in com- 
posites, as radippnpioc, contradictory, &c. There is no ground for the 
sneer with which Schulz treats Storr’s translation of madw by hingegen, 


1, e. €& €vayriac. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 6. 285 


After all, however, I am more inclined to interpret médw here as 
meaning again, i.e. something in addition to what had been already 
said or stated. But as the position, which the writer has given it, is 
somewhat different from that of the preceding cat radu, (which com- 
mences the clause or assertion in which it stands), I suppose the writer 
means to convey the idea, by using dé waduy in the latter case, that 
what he is going to suggest is only additional matter, and not simply 
additional scriptural quotation. Certain it is, that, on other occasions, 
where he cites several texts of scripture continuously, he uses cal radu 
in the same way before each citation; e.g. Heb. ii. 12, 13. [The asser- 
tions of our author, (according to the views which I have of the use of & 
madw here), would run thus, ‘‘ God declares in the scripture, that he 
has begotten the Messiah his Son; and again, that he is his Father, and 
the Messiah his Son; and God has also said, (which shews the supe- 
riority of Christ over angels), that all the angels must worship him.” 
In this way all is natural and easy. | 

As another reason for translating as I have done, it may be added, 
that no direct antithesis (between the declarations, that God had be- 
gotten the Messiah his Son, and that the latter was the Son of God the 
Father, contained in ver. 5) is found in verse 6. This is a sufficient 
reason for avoiding here the translation which Storr, Wahl, and others, 
have given to radu, viz. ex adverso, hingegen=é évartiac. I have no 
doubt that 7é\v may have, and sometimes has, such a meaning; but it 
is unnecessary here, and on the whole, it is an improbable one 

Eisayéyy, k. tr. X. Does this mean ¢o introduce into the world, in the 
same sense as we now speak of introducing one to the world, i.e. 
announcing him to them? This is the common mode of interpretation. 
But some interpret eisayayy by commend, producere et conspicuum facere. 
Others, (with Chrysostom and Theophylact), érav éyyetpion air@ rijv 
oikoupévny, when he delivers the world into his hands, i.e. makes him 
king over all; a sense which zxtroducing to the world, or into the world, 
will hardly bear. None of these interpretations seem to accord with the 
usus loquendi of the New Testament. Eicayayeiy cic riyv oixoupévny and 
aroarédXewy ic roy Kéopov, are plainly phrases of equivalent import ; and 
the latter is repeatedly used concerning Christ, John iii. 17; x. 36, and 
employed to denote either his birth, or his appearing before the world in 
his public character. Such, too, is the Rabbinic usage of pip N2 
Comp. Heb. x. 5. John xvi. 28; xvi. 37; 19esetis not, then, an 
introduction of the Son to the world by prophecy, as expressed in the 


286 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 6, 7. 


Old Testament, which is here spoken of; but an introduction in fact, 
i.e. his birth, or perhaps his entrance on his public office. It was at 
that time, as it would seem, that the angels received the command in 
question. Gregory Nyssen says, ca90 70 kriordy voce EauT@, Eicay Sij- 
vat Néyerae eic THv Kriow, as he united that which was created with 
himself, he is said to be introduced into the creation; cited by Theoph. 
in locum. 

Kai rpocxuvysdrwoay air@ .... Seov, let all the angels of God 
worship him. Compare with this, Luke i. 11, seq.; 1. 26, seq.; in par- 
ticular, li. 8, seq.; where the angelic choir appear, and celebrate the 
birth of the Saviour. The cai here denotes, that the sentence quoted 
stood in connexion with something else which preceded it ; but as this is 
not quoted also, the cai cannot well be translated. 

If this exposition be admitted, (and it appears to be supported both 
by the wsws loguendi of the New Testament, and by fact), then we need 
not be very solicitous, whether the passage in Deut. xxxii. 43 (Sept.), or 
in Ps. xevii. 7, is here quoted by the writer; nor whether either of them 
is quoted. See Excursus VI. 

If I have rightly interpreted ver. 5 and 6, the meaning may be briefly 
expressed thus; ‘‘ Prediction in the scripture assigned to the Son a 
rank above that of the angels, and occurrences at his birth demonstrate 
such to be the fact.” 

Ver. 7. Kat mpdc pév s+. tupdc, moreover, with respect to the 
angels zt is said, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministering 
servants flaming fire; 1.e. who maketh his angels that serve him the 
ministers of his will, as the winds and the lightning are. The Hebrew 
ara) WN, and Greek zupoc pddya, often mean Lightning ; as plainly 
they do here. The whole phrase is susceptible of another interpreta- 
tion; viz. who making his angels winds, i. e. swift as the winds, and his 
servants lightning, i.e. rapid, or terrible, or resistless as the lightning. » 
But this does not suit the design for which the apostle quotes it, so well 
as the first interpretation. His object is to shew, that the angels are 
employed simply in a ministerial capacity; while the Son is Lord of all. 
Our English version, which has rendered Fyipfy> (Ps. civ. 4,) by spirits, 
gives an erroneous view of the meaning of the original. 

Others construe the Hebrew original thus, Who maketh the winds his 
messengers, and the lightnings his servants; and they defend this by 
alleging, that the context in the Psalm shews the design of the writer to 
be, only to declare the glory of God as displayed in the visible creation: 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 8, 9. 287 


and consequently, it is inapposite to suppose him here to be speaking of 
the angels, as an order of ¢nvisible, intelligent beings. But in Ps. ciy. 
1—3, the inviseble as well as visible majesty of God is described; and 
it is natural that the writer should proceed, and augment the force of his 
description, by introducing the angels as the ministering servants of the 
Deity. Besides, the Hebrew does not allow us properly to translate, 
Who maketh the winds his angels or messengers. In order to mean 
this, the Hebrew must be written raN?2 nina my, and not 
‘(as now) MIM YaNDD MWY. See Heb. Gram. sect. 197, 3, and 
comp. in Ps. civ. 3, 329 pay Dwi, which surely cannot be rendered, 

be rendered, ‘¢ Who maketh his chariot clouds.” 

As to éyer, in this verse, it is clear that the nominative cannot be 
Sede, for then the quotation would be in the first person, as it is in ver. 5, 
above. The nominative, beyond all reasonable doubt, is  ypag), or 
6 vopoc. I have rendered déyer in the passive voice, merely to avoid 
expressing the nominative, since the writer has not expressed it. To 
the same purpose Storr and Schulz, heisst es, it is said. So the usual 
appeal in the Mishna, “WINI. Compare also g@yot, in 1 Cor. vi. 16. 
The quotation, in our verse, is from Ps. civ. 4. 

Ver. 8, 9. Tpdc dé roy vidy .... aiwric, but respecting the Son, [he 
saith], Thy throne, O God, is eternal. Opdvoc is plainly the emblem 
of dominion; because kings, when acting in their capacity as rulers, 
were accustomed to sit on thrones. ‘O Sede is not the nominative case, 
as some have maintained, but the vocative. It is the usual vocative, 
and nearly the only form of it, throughout the Septuagint; e.g. 
Ps. i. 7; iv. 1; v.10; vii. 1, et passim. The Attics, moreover, fre- 
juently retain the form of the nominative, in the vocative of the second 
declension. Buttman’s Gram. sect. 33, n.2. To translate the phrase 
by God is thy throne, would be to introduce a mode of expression 
foreign to the usus loqguendi of the Scriptures; for where is God ever 
said to be the throne of his creatures? And what could be the Sense of 
such an expression? Throne is the emblem of dominion, not of support. 
So Theoph. Spévec yap .... 6 Baoireiac oipfodrov. Figuratively used, 
as here, it is of the same import as sceptre, pacoc. Gesenius renders 
the phrase, thy God’s throne is eternal, i.e. the throne which God gives 
thee. But this is doing violence to DYTDON NOD, which, to support his 
rendering, should be TON ND, the pronoun following the second of 
two uouns in regimen, according to the usual custom, Heb. Gram, 
sect. 185, 1. 


288 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 8, 9. 


Pafcdoc evSurnrog . . . . cov, a sceptre of justice is the sceptre 
of thy kingdom, or, thy reign is just. The former clause designates 
the perpetuity of the Son’s reign; the present one, its equitable 
nature. It is quite plain, too, that the two clauses are a poetic 
parallelism, as they belong to Ps. xlv. 7; and also that the subject 
of both clauses is the ame, viz. the dominion or reign of the Son or 
Messiah. 

"Hyaxnoacg . . . avopia, thou hast loved righteousness and hated 
iniquity, i. e. thou hast administered the affairs of thy government in a 
manner altogether just; or, thine equity is highly conspicuous. Such a 
negative form of expression (cal éuéonoac avopiay,) following an affir- 
mative one, is very common in the Scriptures, and is designed to give 
intensity to the affirmative assertion which precedes it. Comp. John 
i. 3, 20. et al. seepe. 

Aua rovro . . . . ayadhudcewe, because of this, O God, thy God has 
anointed thee with the ol of gladness, But the phrase is equally sus- 
ceptible of the rendering, God, thy God, has anointed thee, &c.; and 
this without any alteration of the general sense of the passage. Theo- 
phylact, however, thought otherwise; for he says ‘ 6 Sedc, avrt rot db 
Seé éo7r, aS Our enemy Symmachus (here a credible witness) affirms, who 
renders the Hebrew thus, See, 6 Sede cov.” 

"Edawy ayadddcewe, 1. €. Kar’ EXavoy. Kings were anointed with oil, 
in order to consecrate them to their office; see Ps. ii. 6. 1 Sam. x. 1 : 
xvi. 13. But perfumed oil, or precious omtment, was often employed 
also on festive occasions; and honoured guests at an entertainment were 
often bedewed with it. That éXaoy ayaddcewe here does not mean the 
oil of consecration to office, is plain, from the consideration, that the 
administration of the kingly office is described, in the preceding context, 
as having already existed. The meaning then must be, ‘ God has 
exalted his Son, with honor greater than that bestowed on kings,” or, 
“< bestdwed a higher joy on him than on other kings.” 

Tlapa rove peroxove cov, lit. 2n comparison with thine associates, i. e. in 
office, viz. kings. God has bestowed a higher reward, a greater honor, 
on the king Messiah, than on any other kings. 

Thus much for the words. The general sentiment remains to be stated. 
The words are quoted from Ps. xly. 6, 7. That this whole psalm relates 
to the Messiah, has been generally believed by Jewish and Christian 
commentators; and it is at last acknowledged by Rosenmiiller, in the 
second edition of his Comm. in Psalmos. All other explanations seem 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 8, 9, 10. 289 


liable to insuperable difficulties; and this, one may hope, will soon be 
universally felt and acknowledged. 

That the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, however, as mediatorial 
king, can scarcely be doubted by any one who compares together all its 
different parts. The king is called DTN, Sedc. Does the word Sede 
here denote the divzne, or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah ? 
Most interpreters, who admit the doctrine of the Saviour’s divine nature, 
contend for the first of these senses; as I have myself once done, in a 
former publication. But further examination has led me to believe, that 
there are grounds to doubt of such an application of the word Sede, in this 
passage. The king, here called Yedc, has for himself a Sede; “‘ thy God 
hath anointed thee.” The same king has associates (perdxove,) 1. e. 
others who, in some respects, are in a similar condition or office. As 
divine, who are péroxoe with the Saviour? Besides, his equity, his 
government, his state, as described in Ps. xlv. are all such as belong to 
the King Messiah. Now, as Elohim is a title sometimes given to kings 
or magistrates, as one may see in Ps. lxxxil. 1,6; comp. John x. 35, (in 
Ex. vii. 1; and iv. 16, it is a different case,) although no one individual 
king or magistrate is ever called simply Elohim, may not this title be 
applied, in a sense altogether peculiar and pre-eminent, to the Messiah 
as king; designating his great superiority over all other kings, and distin- 
guishing him as svySpovo¢g with God, as ‘ King of kings, and Lord of 
_lords?” Rey. xvii. 14; Comp. Heb. 1. 3, and the note on éxkaSicey év 
de£@, x... Such an explanation, to say the least, removes some of the 
difficulties which attend the usual one; while the following verses leave 
no just room to doubt what was the opinion of the writer of our epistle, 
in regard to the divine nature of the Messiah. 

The perpetuity of the kingdom mentioned here, may be the same as 
that in Luke i. 33; with which is to be compared 1 Cor. xv. 24—28. 
Indeed, it must be such, allowing the kingdom of the Messiah to be the 
one which is here meant. 

Ver. 10. Kal, od kar’ dpxac . . « « ESepuedtwoac, also, Thou, Lord, in 
the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth. This verse is, by 
construction, necessarily connected with the preceding ones; ver. 7, 
kal mpdc pey rode dyyédove éyer—ver. 8, mpdg dé roy vio [Eyer] ver. 10. 
kal [i. e. mpdc roy vidy éye.] An address to Jehovah here, considered 
simply as creator, is utterly irrelevant to the scope of the writer, and to 
the object which he evidently has in view. Both the grammatical con- 


struction, and the plain design of the passage, unite in declaring this. 
U 


290 COMMENTARY ON HEB. i. 8, &. 


Kaz’ apxac, in the Hebrew, ae eu: 25; at as r3D), of old, formerly, 
equivalent to WN 7A in Gen. i. 1. Ko’pee in the New Testament and 
Septuagint, corresponds both to nip and ON or DTN, in the Hebrew. 
Here it corresponds to DN, in Ps. cii. 24. "B9eueNlwoac, thou hast lard 
the foundation ; Sepedkudw, applied to a building, has this sense. But 
here it is, of course, applied in a figurative manner, to designate the 
original and primary act of creation (so to speak); viz. that act which 
may be compared to what a workman does, when he lays the foundation 
of a building. The Son, therefore, did not merely arrange or set in 
order the materials of creation already brought into being, but laid the 
foundation of the universe, i. e. performed the original act or first work, 
that of bringing it into being. 

"Epya rev xewpar cov FV MWYID, the work of thy hands, i. q. thy 
work, The phrase is borrowed from the fact, that hands are the instru- 
ments by which men usually perform any operation; and this is, like 
other human operations and affections, figuratively transferred to God. 
Oi ovpavot means, all parts of the creation except the earth; see Gen. 
1,1. The Hebrews designated the sun, moon, and stars, i.e. all the 
visible creation besides the earth, by the word DW, heavens. 

Ver. 1]. Airol, they, i. e. the heavens and the earth. Lv dé duapéveicy 
(Hebrew TOY.) thou shalt continue, be permanent, stand fast. It is 
the opposite of_aodovvrar. TadawSicorra, shall wax old, a word 
which, applied to a garment (the image here used,) means, to go into a 
state of decay, or desuetude, to become unfit for use. Hence the meta- 
phorical language that follows. 

Ver. 12. Kai doe... . airodc, and asa vesture shalt thou fold 
them up. ‘Entec, means, to fold up, to roll together. The heavens 
are often represented as an expanse (Y*P}) and rolling them up, is, of 
course, to remove them. The language, however, in the case before us, 
is borrowed from the custom of folding up and laying aside garments 
which have become unfit for use. The Hebrew word (for which Edibéere 
is put) is ron, thou shalt change, remove. ’A)dXayioovrat, they shall 
decay, they shall be changed, i. e. removed, taken away, or shall pass 
away, Hebrew pom Ps. ci. 26, Conip. 2 Pet. ui. 10; Ise? 6; ealso 
xxxiv. 4, where the image is fully presented. 0 é2 6 abréc ci, (Hebrew 
Nv TAN), ) thou art he, viz, who liveth for ever, thou art always the 
same. So the sequel leads us to interpret this. Ta éry cov od éxhel- 
ova, thy years shall never cease or fail, i. e. shall never come to an 


end. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 13, 14. 291 


This would be true, if it was spoken merely with reference to the 
future, and should be construed as having respect only to eternity 
a parte post, as it is technically called, i. e. eternity to come. But as it 
stands here, in connexion with having created the heavens and the earth, 
car’ apxae, it can hardly be understood to mean less than absolute eter- 
nity, or eternity a parte ante et a parte post. See Excursus VII. 

Ver. 13. Hpdc riva ce rév dyyékwy . . . « dekudv pov, unto which of the 
angels, also, has he ever said, sit at my right hand. That is, where is 
any example of his addressing any one of the angels, and asking him fo 
stt at his right hand, i. e. to be ovySpovoc with him? See on deka 
pleyadoovrne, under ver. 3, above. 

"Ewc dy $6. . . . roddy cov, until I shall make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool, i. e. reduce them to the most entire subjection. These words are 
quoted from Ps. cx. 1, (Sept. cix. 1,) and are applied to the Messiah. 
To muke enemies a footstool, is an expression borrowed from the custom, 
in ancient times, of treading upon the necks of captives and cuptive 
kings, on the occasion of celebrating a triumph over them, and in token 
of their complete prostration and subjection; see Joshua x. 24, and so 
often in Homer. Enemies signify all such as are opposed to the doc- 
trines or duties of the Christian religion. In Ps. ex. 1, the Messiah is 
invited to sit at the right hand of God, (i. e. at his right hand on his 
throne, comp. Rev. iii. 21,) until (TY, ewe av) his enemies should be 
utterly subdued. But what follows this period, when they shall have 
been thus subdued? The apostle has told us. It is the mediatorial 
throne to which the Messiah is exalted; it is to him as constituted king, 
that his enemies are to be brought in subjection; and when this is 
accomplished, the mediatorial throne and reign, as such, are to cease. 
So 1 Cor. xv. 24—28, seems to assure us. 

Ver. 14. How different the station and employment of angels from 
that of the Messiah! He is ctySpovog with God, and commands the uni- 
verse; they are spirits employed merely as ministers to execute his will. 
Are they not all Aeroupyeca rvetpara? Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 19; Zech, 

. 5—7. Dan. vii. 10. Is. vi. 1. Lukei. 19. By the Rabbins, the 
a: are frequently named RD wT ‘N79, angeli ministerit. Eig 
ccaxoviay, for ministering, in order to serve, i.e. assist. Ataxovia means 
any kind of service or assistance whatever. It is here said to be per- 
formed, dc& rode pedovrac KANpovopety owrnpiay, on account of those who 
are to obtain salvation, i. e. on account of Christians who are the heirs 
of future glory or happiness, or, who will obtain it. 

u 2 


292 COMMENTAARY ON HEB. It. I. 


Whatever may be the opinion of some modern critics, in regard to the 
teal existence of angels as intelligent beings, it appears quite clear that 
the writer of our epistle regarded them as such. To have instituted a 
comparison between the Son of God, on the one hand, and mere abstract 
qualities or tmaginary beings, on the other, would not seem to be very 
apposite, at least not apposite to any serious purpose. And if the writer 
looked upon angels as only wmaginary beings, or personifications of 
qualities, with what propriety or consistency could he represent them as 
worshipping the Son of God, or as ministering to the saints? But Ps. 
cii. 3, is first erroneously translated, He maketh the wind his angels, and 
flaming fire his servants, Nevrovpyove avrov, and it is then used as a proof 
that the elements themselves are called angels. Hence it is concluded, 
that it is unnecessary to suppose angels to be an order of real, intelligent 
beings. But as this translation is not well grounded, (see on ver. 7,) 
any such conclusion built upon it cannot be stable. That the sacred 
writers every where regard angels, and speak of them, as intelligent 
beings, having a real existence, appears so plain, that it would seem as 
if no one who is not strongly wedded to his own a priori and philo- 
sophical reasoning, could venture to deny it. 


CHAP. II. 


Ver. 1. Ati tovro on this account, therefore, i. e. since Christ who is 
at the head of the new dispensation, is so much exalted above the angels 
who were the mediators of the old (see ver. 2,) zt becomes us, &c. 
"Hpac, us by Koivworc, i. e. a method of speaking in which the writer 
includes himself with those whom he addresses. See Heb.i. 1; ii. 3; 
ii. 1, 14; iv. 2, &c. See also similar cases in 1 Cor. x. 8, 9. 2 Cor. 
vil. 1. Acts vi. 17, et alibi. 

Ipoc¢xecy is elliptical, (rpocéyew Tov vovy is the full expression,) and 
means, attendere, to give heed to. Abresch thinks it is here equivalent to 
avréxecSar, retinere, tenaciter adhaerere ; which Dindorf also favours. 
But evidently this is unnecessary, inasmuch as zepiocorépwe is connected 
with it, and designates the intensity of mind, with which attention should 
be paid to the things that the Son of God reveals. ’AxousSeior, things 
heard, are the truths and doctrines of the Christian religion, which had 
been declared to them, see ver. 3, 4. 

Tlapappvepey, a long-contested and difficult word. Two senses have 
been principally contended for; (1.) to fall, to stumble, or to perish. 
This latter sense Chrysostom and Theophylact give it; rapappvaeper, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 1. 293 


rovréort, atohoperta, exréowpev. Both illustrate it by the proverbial 
saying, addressed to a child, vte, yu rapappuic, Prov. iii. 21, in order to 
guard him against stumbling. In like manner, Theodoret represents the 
word as spoken here, iva pu} teva O\oSov bropeivwper, so that we may not 
suffer a lapse, or may not stumble, fall. So Suidas explains it by Trapa- 
réswpev 3 Hesych. by éxxéowper 3 Lex. Cyrilli, px} Tapappunc, jo) exréone, 
f.) mapasipnc, The Syriac and Arabic interpreters have rendered it, 
tat we may not fall. Alberti and Matthiae, with many modern critics, 
assign to it the same sense. The idea connected with stumbling, falling, 
by this class of commentators, is not that of transgression, but of punish- 
ment, of destruction, as is evident from the whole of their illustrations, 
when compared each with himself and with the others. 

But, although this view of the word has been often given, none of the 
passages adduced from the Greek writers, and alleged to justify it, seem 
adequate for this purpose. Wetstein has collected a large number of 
pxssages, which contain the word in question. But most of them are 
ouly such as designate the well-known senses of the word rapappuw, 
viz. to flow, to flow by ; as, Tw rapa wddwy rapappéorre Toray (Plutarch ;) 
micly &XO TOU Tapappéovroc woTapov (Xen.;) to flow into, as rapappvete 

. €¢ TO ordpa tdpwe (Galen;) in all which cases the word is 
applied to the flowing of liquids ; to flow out, as et ric &dpociovog NO-yog 
axapappuy (ZElian.) In some cases the word is figuratively applied to 
jocomotion in men; as rapappvetc yap dvSpwroe eic¢ Tov vewy [vad] rov' 
AoxAnmiwv (Plutarch.) None of these instances justify the sense of 
perishing, falling into ruin. 

2. The other sense contended for is, that of suffering to flow from the 
mind or memory, i.e. to forget. That rapappveiy is frequently applied 
to things that glide or pass away from the mind, is well established. 
E. g. “* Many, who seem to be believers, . . . . need, for the sake of 
remembering, . . . . examples drawn from objects of sense... . iva 
je} TéXEov Tapappuy, so that they will not entirely escape, i. e. from the 
mind, Origen contra Celsum, p. 393.” ‘ That ra cada may not be 
nerely temporary, kat po) tapappun ASne BuSoic apavpovpéva, and may 
not escape [flow away,] being obscured in the abysses of forgetfulness, 
Greg. Nazianz.” So Lucian, e re év rO romoewe Spdpw wapapprev adn, 
ef any thing flowing away [escaping] in the poetic course is forgotten, 
Diss. cum Hesiod. 5. So in Latin, “ frustra docemur, si quidquid 
audimus praeterfluat [xapappvei,] Quinctil. XI. 2.” “ It cannot enter 
into the mind of the judge, ante enim praeterlabitur quam percepta 


294 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Il. 1. 


est, for 2¢ glides away before it is apprehended,” Cicero de Orat 
II. 25. 

But in all these casts, rapapéu6 is applied only to things, and not to 
persons. That a thing rapapsuq, should escape from me, and that I 
should be said zapafpvuciy in respect to that thing, are two very different 
expressions; and consequently, all the instances above, which have been 
adduced by learned critics, do not meet the difficulty of the case. 
Ilapappveper is applied, in our text, to persons, not (as here) to things. 

In the classics, I have been able to find no example, which is in point 
for our case. The Septuagint have used the word but once, Prov. iii. 21, 
vié pup Tapappuic, THencoy Oe éwjy Poudijy Kal Evvocay, Son, do not pass by 
[neglect,] but keep my counsel and advice. This is the very proverb to 
which Chrysostom and Theophylact appeal, as an illustration of the word 
in question ; but the true sense of this word, in Prov. iil. 21, they do not 
seem to have apprehended. Ilapapéujc here plainly does not mean to 
perish, to fall, but it is the antithesis of ripyoov, keep, attend to, prac- 
tise, and consequently means, to pass by, to neglect, to transgress. In 
like manner, Clemens Alex., speaking of women, says, ‘‘ They are bound 
by virtuous modesty, iva ju) Tapappudor rijc adnLeiag Cu yavvornra, not 
to neglect [pass by, transgress] the truth on account of effeminate weak- 
ness, Pedagog.” III. p. 246. These two instances seem to meet the 
wants of our case, as tapappue is here applied to persons. 

The sense which our passage demands, is better made out by following 
these examples, than in any other way. The writer of our epistle does 
not design to say, in ch. ii. 1, Take heed, or you will perish: for he 
speaks of punishment immediately after, in ch. ii. 2. The explanation 
of Chrysostom, then, and of the great number of critics who have fol- 
lowed him, is rendered improbable by the nature of the context, and it is 
unsupported by any classic example in point. The other explanation, 
lest we should let them slip, lest we should not retain them, lest they 
should glide away, is an approximation to the right meaning of the word. 
Plainly, pu) rapappvdpev, here applied to persons, means, lest we should 
pass by, viz. the things which we have heard, lest we should neglect 
them, lest we should transgress, [pass beyond] them; for so the writer 
himself has explained it, in the context. or if, says he, every’ wapa- 
Baowe and rapaxoy received a due reward [under the law of Moses, | 
how shall we escape punishment, apedjoarrec, having neglected so great 
salvation. That dpedrhoayrec here refers to the same thing which is 
designated by rapappugper, is quite clear; for, first, the writer exhorts 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 2, 3. 295 


them ‘‘to attend diligently to what they had heard, lest they should 
pass by or neglect it;” and then he says, ‘If they do neglect it 
(apedjoaryrec,) punishment will be the certain consequence, a pun- 
ishment more severe than that inflicted on transgressors under 
the law.” 

The same sentiment is obtained, if we compare rapappueper with the 
preceding wepiscorépwe . . . mpooéyerv, Of which it is plainly the op- 
posite or antithesis. Now as xpooéyew means, to attend diligently, to 
> give heed, so rapappvGmev must mean, (as its antithesis,) not to attend 
diligently, i. e. to treat with neglect, to be dpedjoayrec, as it is ex- 
pressed in the following verse. In a word, the sentiment is, “‘ diligent 
attention to the truths of the gospel is necessary to guard us against 
neglect or transgressions ; which neglect is followed by certain and 
aggravated condemnation.” 

If an apology be due for dwelling so long on the verbal criticism of 
this word, it is, that the word has been so long contested, and so un- 
satisfactorily illustrated. 

Ver. 2. Ei yap 6 di dyyédwy adnSele Aoyoc, if the communication 
[revelation] made by angels. The Jewish law is undoubtedly the \dyoc 
ci ayyé\wv apnSetc, in this case. The meaning is, that angels were 
present, and assisted, at the giving of the law. See Excursus VIII. 

"Eyévero PeBaioc, was ratified, was made firm and stable, i. e. its 
threatenings and promises were exactly fulfilled; nothing which the 
Jaw declared was null, or failed of being carried into execution. Comp: 
Rom. divs 16: Heb; 1x, 17. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 

Kal raoa mwapaBacce Kal rapaxo), every transgression and act of 
disobedience. ‘The words are nearly, or quite synonymous by usage, 
both of them being employed in a secondary or derived sense. Tapa- 
Baste, (from rapafaivw,) literally, going beyond, passing by any thing, 
is here applied to a moral action, So wapaxo comes from zapaxovw 
which means, first, fo hear in a careless or negligent manner; and 
secondly, to disobey, i. e. it is the opposite of dxkotw, to hear, and to 
obey. TlapaBacte kat tapaxon taken together mean, every kind of trans~ 
gression, or, every kind of offence, against the law. 

"Evduov pusSarodociay, just retribution, or condign punishment. 
MicSarodvcia designates the reward of retributive justice, i. e. punish- 
ment, as well as the reward for virtuous conduct; and this, in heathen 


as well as sacred writers. 


296 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11. 4. 


Ver. 3. THae husic éxpevicpedta, how shall we escape? viz. escape the 
puoSarodociay reserved for transgressors. Comp. Heb. xii. 25. So 
Rom. ii. 3, éxpevyery ro xpiua rov Oeov. So Asch. Eumen. v. 756, 
exgevyew aiparoc dikny. 

Tnrtcavrng owrnpiac, i.e. the Christian religion; for so the word 
owrnpiag sometimes signifies. Comp. Jude ver. 3, perhaps Rom. xi. 11, 
and Heb. vi. 9. The full phrase would seem to be 6 Néyoe rij¢ owrnpiac, 
which is found in Acts xui. 26. It is, however, the Christian religion, 
with all its promised blessings and tremendous threats, which is here 
designated by cwrnpia. How can we escape with impunity, if we neglect 
(apedjoarrec) them? ’Apedjoarrec here means more than simple neg- 
lect ; it is plainly emphatic in this connexion, and means, ¢o treat 
with utter disregard or contempt, such, namely, as would be implied 
in apostacy. 

‘Hrec dpyijyv aBotoa adeioSar, equivalent to éy apy Aadyeioa, 
which was at first declared or published. The Greeks often use the 
phrase dpyijv Aafwr, for, at first, or taking its rise, commencing its 
origin. Tov Kupiov, viz. Christ. 

‘Yr rév axovodyrwy sie hae éEBeBawSn, was confirmed unto us by 
those who heard [him,] 1. e. the Lord, or, by those who heard [it,] i.e. 
the gospel, owrnpiay. ’EGeBaw3n here means delivered or declared 
with confirmation to us, i. e. Christians. So Theophylact, dcexopSpetSn 
cic Ipc PePalarc Kai mrot@c, was propagated to us surely and faithfully. 
Because the writer here says eic¢ fae, some critics draw the conclusion 
that Paul could not have been the author of this epistle, since he 
received the gospel immediately from Christ himself, Gal. i. 12, and 
not from those who heard the Saviour declare it. But who that reads 
his writings with care, can fail to observe how often he employs xoiywate, 
when addressing Christians? Cicero says, in one of his orations, Nos 
perdimus rempublicam. Shall we conclude that he did not write the 
oration, because he did not himself destroy the republic ? See on jae, 
under ver. 1, and also Introduction, § 27, No. 17. 

Ver. 4. Luveryaprupodvvrog Tov Seov onpietorc re kal répact, God attest- 
ing, being co-witness, viz. to the truth of what was preached, by 
various wonderful events, Xnpeiov, as used often in the New Testa- 
ment and in the Septuagint, means, any extraordinary sign, or mira- 
culous event, designed to show the certainty that something which 
had been promised or predicted should take place, or that a prophet 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11. 4. 297 


was what he professed to be. Tépac, portentum, prodigrum, miracle, 
has nearly the same meaning, and is very commonly joined with onpeior, 
in the New Testament. Both connected, mean, various extraordinary 
events or prodigies, designed to confirm, establish, or render credible, 
any prediction or declaration of Christ, or of his messengers. Heathen 
writers sometimes employ both words in connexion; e. g. lian, Var. 
Hist. XII. 57. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is, DDVW Nk, 
sgns and wonders, i. e. wonderful signs or proofs of any thing. Such 
the people of God often required, and such were often given. See 
Gen. xv. 8—18; xxiv. 12—27. Judges vi. 17. 21. 36—40. 2 Kings, 
xix. 29, Isa, xxxvill. 7, 8; vil. 14—16, et alibi. Comp. Matt. xii. 38. 
xvi. 1—38, 

Kat rouxidare duvapeor, and various miraculous powers. Sometimes 
Covapuc is put for miracle, as Matt. vii. 22; xi. 20, 21. 23, et alibi. But 
as onpetoic Kat Tepace denote miraculous events, in our verse, I under- 
stand cuvémeoe as referring here to the miraculous powers which were 
imparted to the primitive teachers of the Christian religion, In such 
a sense the word is employed, in Mark vi. 14. Acts vi. 8; x.38. The 
Septuagint do not employ this word to translate either MIN or 
Onpi, but always use onpetoy and répara. 

What follows, is connected with the phrase just explained ; viz. kat 
mvevparoc wylov pepeopoic, literally, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, 
i. e. the imparting of divine influence ; which refers particularly to the 
species of this influence, which consisted in the power of working 
miracles. See 1 Cor. xii. 6—11. Comp. also John vii. 39. Acts i. 5. 8 ; 
Wet le pla ode eV Le Vill. L5—1 9's. x, 44-47 5 xix. e— 6, 

TlortNare duvapert . . . . Kal pepuopoic, if considered as a Hen- 
dyadis (€y dua Cvotv,) may be thus rendered, various miraculous powers, 
imparted by divine influence. But I rather prefer the rendering which 
I have given it in the version, as pepiopote probably designates the addi- 
tional gifts of the Spirit, other than miraculous power. 

Kara rijv avrov Sé\now, as it seemed good in hes [God's] sight, as 
he pleased ; or, as the Holy Spirit pleased, which last is fayoured by 
1 Cor, xii. 6—11. 

The sum of the whole warning (ver. 1—4) is, ‘‘ Beware that ye do 
not slight the gospel, whose threatenings are more to be dreaded than 
those of the law; masmuch as the gospel is a revelation of a higher 
nature, and has been confirmed by more striking and more abundant 
miracles, wrought by divine power.” 


298 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 4. 


The writer, after having thus stopped for a moment to warn his readers against the 
consequences of defection from Christianity, returns to his subject, viz. the comparison 
of Christ with the angels. Having established, by appeals to the Old Testament 
(i. 5—14,) the superiority of the former over the latter, in several points of view; he 
now proceeds to show, that the new or Christian dispensation was not ordered or 
arranged (like the Mosaic one) by angels, but that the Son of Man, the Messiah, was, 
in his human nature, placed at the head of it. Now, as the Jews, one and all, con- 
ceded that the dispensation of the Messiah would be of a higher order than that of 
Moses, proof that Jesus was the sole mediator or head of the new dispensation, and 
that angels were not employed as mediators or internuntii in it, would satisfy them 
that Jesus was superior to the angels; since the place which he holds in the new 
economy, is higher than that which they had under the o/d, because the new economy 
itself is of a higher nature than the old. At the same time, an objection which a Jew, 
weak in Christian faith and strong in his attachment to the Mosaic institutions, would 
very naturally feel, is met, and tacitly answered by the apostle, in what follows. The 
unbelieving Jews, doubtless, urged upon those who professed an attachment to Chris- 
tianity, the seeming absurdity of renouncing their subjection to a dispensation of which 
angels were the mediators, and of acknowledging a subjection to one of which the professed 
head and mediator appeared in our nature. The history of the objections made by the 
unbelieving Jews, to the claims of Jesus as being the Son of God (John x. 30—39, et 
alibi,) shows how very repulsive it was to their feelings, that one to all appearance like 
a man, and made up of flesh and blood in the same manner as themselves, should 
advance a claim to the exa!ted honours of a superior and divine nature. ‘The sects of 
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which arose even in the apostolic age, from professed 
Jewish Christians in Palestine, show how prone the Jewish Christians were, to feel 
doubts and difficulties about the claims of Jesus to a nature higher than the human, 
and to which divine honours were due. 

No wonder, then, that the apostle found it necessary to meet, in our epistle, those 
doubts and difficulties with regard to the superior nature of the Christian dispensation, 
which were urged upon the minds of Jewish converts by the unbelieving Jews, who 
regarded Christ as a mere man. We shall see, however, that our author disposes of 
this difficulty, so as to further the great purpose of his general argument. 

He concedes the fact entirely, that Jesus had a nature truly and properly human, 
ver. 6—18. But instead of granting that this proves the new dispensation to be 
inferior to that of Moses, he proceeds to adduce evidence from the Old Testament 
Scriptures, to show that man, or the human nature in the person of the Messiah, should 
be made Lord of the universe. Consequently, in this nature, Jesus the Messiah is 
superior to the angels. Of course, the possession by Jesus of a nature truly and pro- 
perly human, does not at all prove either his inferiority, or the inferiority of the dispen- 
sation of which he is the head (ver. 6—9;) which meets an objection strongly urged 
upon. the Hebrew Christians by their unbelieving brethren. 

Nay, more; it was becoming that God should exalt Jesus, in consequence of his 
obedience unto death ; a death necessary for the salvation of Jew and Gentile, ver. 9, 10. 
To suffer this death, he must needs take on him a nature like ours; and, as his object 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 5, 6. 299 


was the salvation of men (and not of angelic beings,) so he participated in the nature of 
men, in order that by experience he might know their sufferings, temptations, and 
trials, and thus be prepared, in a peculiar manner and in their own nature, to be com- 
passionate, faithful, and ready to succour them, ver. 11—18. 

The sum of the whole is: “ The possession of a human nature by Jesus, is far from 
being a reason, why the ancient dispensation (of which angels were the internuntii) is 
preferable to the new one; for (1.) This very nature is exalted far above the angels. 
(2.) Without participating in this nature, Jesus could not have made expiation for sin 
by his death. And (3.) The possession of such a nature did contribute, in a peculiar 
and endearing manner, to constitute him such a Saviour as men could approach with 
the greatest boldness and confidence, in all their wants and all their woes.” 

Such appears to be the course of reasoning and thought, in Heb. ii. The words and 
phrases remain to be explained. 


Ver. 5. Tijy oixoupévny thy pedovoay, equivalent to 6 aiwy 6 pédor, 
i.e. the Christian dispensation, the world as it will be in future, 6 pé\wr, 
i. e. the world under the reign of Christ. See Wahl, on the word aidy. 
The addition of the writer, wept jj Aadotuev, Shows that such is the sense 
of the phrase; for it is Christianity, to which he had just been urging 
the Hebrews to pay the strictest regard. 

Ver. 6. Ateapriparo d& mov rie, one in a certain place, 1. e. passage 
of Scripture, bears this testimony. The writer speaks to those who were 
supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and who needed only 
a reference to them, by quoting some of the words which any passage 
contained, in order that they might be found. Fora Hebrew to acknow- 
ledge the authority of his own Scriptures, might be expected as a matter 
of course. The passage quoted here in Ps. vill. 4—6, exactly according 
to the version of the LXX. 

Ti gory dySpwroc, Ore pyviokn ovrov; what is man, that thou 
shouldest kindly remember him? The secondary sense of puprijoxw is, 
to remember with affection, to treat with kindness. So the Heb. ts 
and so puprioxeoSe, in Heb xu. 3. 

"H vide avSpwrov, dre éxcoxéxryn avroy, or the son of man that thou 
shouldest regard him! The phrase vide avSpmrov, is equivalent to 
évSpwro¢: just as in Hebrew, OTN J2 is equivalent to DIN. The sub- 
ject is evidently the same as in the preceding clause, and vide avSparov 
is employed merely for the sake of giving variety to the mode of expres- 
sion. "Extoxéxropac, to visit, is usually, to inspect, or look upon favour- 
ably, to watch over one for his good, to succour him, to assist him. 
See Matt. xxv. 36. Luke i. 68. James i. 27. In the New Testament, it 
is used only in a sense which designates inspecting with an eye of favour. 


300 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 7. 


But in the Septuagint it is also used for, vistting in order to punish; as 
‘s the Hebrew TPB, e. g. Ex. xxxii. 34; xxxiv 7, et alibi. Our English 
word regard (taken in a good sense,) answers well to ertoxérropat. The 
classical use of the word sometimes, though rarely, accords with the 
sense in which it is here employed. 

Ver. 7. "H\drrwoac airoy Byaxd Te rap ayyédouc, thou hast made him 
but little inferior to the angels. Tapa here means, in comparison with ; 
as in ch. i. 4, tap airovc. Boaxv re may signify either a little time, or a 
little in respect to degree or rank: in which last case, it would be equi- 
valent here to our English word somewhat. In the Septuagint it is 
employed in both these senses; as is also the Hebrew word Ord which, 
is here rendered by Spayu te. In Ps. viil. 6, OYlD seems pretty plainly 
to refer to inferiority of rank or station, and not to time. But in our 
text, most recent commentators have maintained that it refers to ¢2me ; 
and consequently, that the apostle has merely accommodated the passage 
in Ps. viii. to an expression of his own views. But such a mode of inter- 
pretation is, at least, unnecessary here. The object which the writer of 
our epistle has in view, is not to prove how little time Christ appeared in 
our nature; but that, although he did possess a nature truly human, still, 
in this nature he was exalted above the angels. "Hddrrwoac abrov Boaxu 
rt wap ayyéXove, then, simply designates the condztion of man, as being in 
itself but little inferior to that of the angels. Man is made in the image 
of God, Gen. i. 26, 27; ix. 6. It is plainly the dignzty of man which the 
Psalmist intends to describe, when he says, DYN Oyrs WON. 
To such a view of his design, the context of this passage in Ps. viii. 
leads us. The Psalmist looks abroad, and surveys the heavens in all 
their splendour and glory, and then, with deep sensations of his own 
comparative insignificance, he exclaims, ‘‘ What is man! that thou 
shouldest be mindful of him! or the son of man, that thou shouldest 
regard him! Yet, [3 but, yet] thou hast made him but little inferior 
(t Oia WIM) to the angels, thou hast crowned him,” &c. The 
nature of the case, and the nature of poetic parallelism, here require 
such an interpretation of the passage in the original Psalm. 

But the very same interpretation of it is altogether apposite to the 
purpose of the writer, in Heb. ii. 1. What is his design? To prove 
that Christ, in his human nature, is exalted above the angels. How does 
he undertake to prove this? First, by showing that this nature itself is 
made but little inferior to that of the angels, jAdr7woac abrov Bpayy Te rap 
ayyédove; and next, that it has been exalted to the empire of the world 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Il. 8. 301 


“Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and set him over the 
work of thy hands.” 

But suppose, now, that we should render Apayd rt, for a little while ; 
what object, which the writer designs to accomplish, is accomplished by 
such an assertion? It would not contain any proof of the dignity of 
Christ in his human nature, but merely of temporary inferiority, i. e. 
inferiority during the time of his incarnation. Clearly it is not the 
present object of the writer to prove this. Much more to the purpose 
does he appear to reason, when we understand him as using Jpaxd re, 
in the same sense as OY" is used by the Psalmist. The passage thus 
understood, renders the vindications (attempted by many) of the 
liberties, which the writer is alleged to have taken with Ps. viii. 6, quite 
unnecessary. 

lap ayyéXove, in the Hebrew DTN. On the subject of rendering 
DYN, ayyédot, see on ch. i. 6. If we insist that the usual meaning 
of the Hebrew word Elohim should be retained, the argument would be 
still stronger, to prove the dignity of the Messiah in his human nature. 
Thou hast made him but little inferior to Elohim, would represent him 
at least, as iodyyeNoc, if not above, the angels. See Gen. i. 26, 27, from 
which the language here, and in the sequel, appears to be borrowed. 

But how could the apostle use wap ayyedouc, as conveying the sense 
of DYN? ? In answer to this, we may say, (1.) It conveys no mean- 
ing that is untrue. If man is but little below Elohim, surely he is not 
much inferior to the angels. (2.) As angels are here compared by the 
writer with man, or rather, the angelic with the human nature in the 
person of the Saviour, the passage, as it stands in the Septuagint, and 
as the apostle has quoted it, is apposite to his purpose; although it 
claims, in fact, dess for the argument, than would be claimed, by 
insisting that the word DYN should be interpreted as usual. As the 
writer was addressing those who used the Septuagint version of the 
Scriptures, nothing could be more natural than to quote that version 
as it should, unless it conveyed an idea that was essentially erroneous. 
This is just what we do, every day, with our English version of the 
Scriptures, without suspecting that we are violating any rule of pro- 
priety. 

Resides the LXX. the Chaldee has rendered DONT by NINN, 
i.e. map ayyédovce. With this rendering Aben Ezra agrees; as do 
Mendelsohn, Michaelis, Dathe, and others. But, as the writer seems 
to refer, in Ps. villi. 6—9, to Gen. i. 26—28, the probability that 


) 


302 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Il. 8. 


DYTIN in Ps. vill. 6, means, God, i. e. that the author of the Psalm 
originally meant to convey this idea when he used it, is pretty strong. 
Still the apostle, by using the version of the LXX, zap dyyéXouc, has, 
as I have already said, assumed less in the argument, than the original 
would have given him; and at the same time, he has taken a version, 
which in its present shape is exactly apposite to his purpose, 1. e. to 
show, that if a comparison of Christ with the angels be made, it will 
be seen, that during his humiliation he was but little inferior to them, 
while in his exaltation in the human nature, he is far above them. 

Adén kal rym éxrepavwoac abroy, thou hast crowned him with glory 
and honour, or, with exalted honour. Ady cat ryan are nearly equiva- 
lent or synonymous; and two synonymous nouns, thus constructed, 
are expressive of intensity, agreeably to the well-known usage of the 
Hebrew language, from which this idiom is borrowed. In the original, 
WMO minh) 3), which is very literally rendered in the Greek. 

But w hat i is the exalted honour conferred upon the human nature of 
Jesus? Kal xaréornoac avroy éxi ru épya roy xepHy cov, thou hast set 
him over the works of thy hands,1i. e. thou hast given him dominion 
over the creation. “Epya 7éy ye: cov means simply, the works which 
thou hast made, i. e. thy works. The form of expression is borrowed 
from the mode of human operations, in which hands are the most con- 
spicuous instrument. Kadusrype, sesto, colloco, statuo. It should be 
noted, however, that this clause is omitted in some Codices of good 
authority; such as B. D. and several others. 

Ver. 8. Tldvra irératace vroxdrw rév rocdev avrov, thou hast sub- 
jected all things to him, i. e. given him universal dominion. The 
phrase, to put under one’s feet, denotes, to put in a state of complete, 
entire subjection. See Excursus IX. 

The writer proceeds to comment on the quotation just made. “Ey 
yap TP Urordka airy Ta TarTA, OvdEY ApiKey a’T@ avuTdraxror, 1. e. the 
expression is one of universality, it makes no exception, but only God 
himself; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27. 

Niy 6€ ovzw dpepev ato Ta wavra broreraypéva, at present, indeed, 
we do not see all things yet subjected to him. “Yxoreraypéva, sub- 
ject to his ordering, arrangement or disposal. In other words, ‘ This 
prophecy of the Psalmist is not, as yet, wholly fulfilled; but so 
much of it has been accomplished, that we may regard it as a 
pledge, that a fulfilment of the rest will certainly follow.” So the 
sequel. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 9. 303 


Ver. 9. Tov d& Bpayuv ri. . . yevonra Savdrov, but we see Jesus, who 
was made but litle inferior to the angels, crowned with glory and 
honour on account of the suffering of death, after that he had, by 
the grace of God, tasted of death for all, i.e. for Jew and Gentile. 
So I understand this much controverted and somewhat difficult pas- 
sage. Two objections against the superiority of Christ over angels, 
were very naturally urged by the unbelieving Jews upon the believing 
ones. (1.) Christ wasa man. (2.) He suffered an ignominious death. 
To the first, the apostle replied in the quotation which precedes, and on 
which he is commenting. But in doing this, he also suggests the con- 
sideration, that the death of Jesus, so far from proving his condition to 
be inferior to that of the angels, was immediately connected with his 
exaltation to glory, and with the salvation of the world. 

It would be tedious to recount all the various interpretatidéns which 
have been given to particular parts of the ninth verse. I limit myself 
merely to stating the reasons of the interpretation which I have given. 

Aoén cal ryh ésepavwpévoy, crowned with the highest honour, ova rd 
rasnua Tov Oavarov, on account of his suffering death. See the same 
sentiment in Phil. ii, 8—11; Heb. xii. 2. Compare John xvii. 4, 5; 
Heb. v. 7—9; Eph. 1. 20—23; Rev. ii. 21. 

“Ozwe, the great mass of commentators have translated, ut, eum in 
finem ut, unde sequitur ut, &c. But how was Christ crowned with glory 
and honour, that he might taste death? To avoid this difficulty, most 
of them transpose the clause, ézwe Kepurey k. 7. A. SO as to connect it with 
the first clause of the verse, and translate thus, Jesus, made for a little 
time lower than the angels, in order that [ut, ut sic] he might taste of 
death, &c. But the apostle’s object here, is not to show simply that 
Jesus possessed a nature in which he might taste of death; but that the 
suffering of death in it, (a fact conceded by all,) is no reason why he 
should be deemed inferior to the angels. Consequently the turn given 
to the passage, by the above transposition and explanation, is inapposite 
to the purpose of the writer. 

That ézwe generally means, that, so that, tn order that, &c.; patti- 
cularly, that it has this meaning in most instances where it occurs in the 
New Testament, there can be no reasonable doubt. But ézwe also 
means, cum, quando, postquam, when, after, after that. So it means, 
plainly, in Acts ii. 19, although Wahl has overlooked the passage. So 
also in Herod. i. 17. Aristoph. Nub. 61. Soph. Gidip. Col. 1638. 
Homer, Il, xm. 208. Odys. 1. 373; xx. 22. Eurip. Phenis, 1155. 


394 COMMENTARY ON HEB. li. 9. 


1464. This sense also Hoogeveen, Zeunius, Ernesti, Schleusner, and 
Schneider, assign to it. “Ozwe is construed, more usually, with the 
future indicative, or with the subjunctive first or second aorist, in case 
these tenses are found in any verb. In the instances before us, it is 
followed by ysvonrat, in the subjunctive first aorist, middle voice. It may 
then be rendered by the past time, (as I have translated it;) just as in 
the cases where the formula ézwe ynpwy occurs, it is often rendered, 
or should be rendered, so that there was an accomplishment. The only 
difference in the latter case is, that the voice is passive; which, how- 
ever, does not affect the question about the mode of rendering the 
tense. 

This method of interpreting the verse frees us from the very great 
embarrassments, which are presented by most of the others; and the 
sentiment becomes plain and apposite. ‘‘ Jesus did indeed take on him 
our nature, and suffer in it; but his sufferings were the means of 
advancing him to supreme dignity, after he had by them procured 
salvation for the human race, izep tavroc. So long, then, as the highest 
glory was consequent upon the sufferings of Jesus, and the salvation 
of Jew and Gentile was accomplished by it, surely the death of Christ 
can never prove that he is inferior to the angels.” In this way, all the 
reasoning of the writer seems to be apposite to his purpose. 

Xdpure Ocovd means, by the goodness, kindness, mercy of God. ‘Yxép 
mavroc means, all men without distinction, i. e. both Jew and Gentile. 
The same view is often given of the death of Christ. See John iii. 
$4175 tiv. 42: sxiie32, John n. 2 51v. 14.)12im. i183, 4 “Titan, 
11. 2 Pet. iii. 7. Compare Rom. ili. 29, 30; x. 11—13. In all these 
and the like cases, the words all, and all men, evidently mean, Jew and 
Gentile. They are opposed to the Jewish idea, that the Messiah was 
connected appropriately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the 
blessings of the kingdom were appropriately, if not exclusively, theirs. 
The sacred writers mean to declare, by such expressions, that Christ died 
really and truly as well, and as much, for the Gentiles as for the Jews ; 
that there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one 
who may belong to his kingdom; and that all men, without exception, 
have equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who 
understands the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in 
expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every individual 
of the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the wsus 
loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly against the views of those 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 10. 305 


who advocate what is called a particular redemption. The question, in 
all these phrases, evidently respects the offer of salvation, the opportunity 
to acquire it through a Redeemer; not the actual application of pro- 
mises, the fulfilment of which is connected only with repentance and 
faith. But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to those 
who are reprobates, (and whom the Saviour knows are and will be such,) 
consistently with the grounds which the advocates for particular redemp- 
tion maintain, is a question for the theologian, rather than the com- 
mentator, to discuss. 

Tetonrat Savarov, taste of death, i. e. experience death, suffer it. So 
the Hebrew writers use the word DYyd for experience ; and classic Greek 
authors, the word yevouae in the same sense. E.g. Ps. xxxiv. 9. Sibyll. 
Orac. I. p. 164, ’Acap yevodpevog Savdrov. Eunapius de Porphyrio, 
“« Porphyry praised the spell of purity, cat ca melpac yevoapevoc, and 
Jirst tried [tasted] it himself.” Philo (de vita Mosis, p. 632,)  didvore 
Toy yevoapevwy Oovdrntoc, the mind of those who have experienced [tasted] 
holiness. 

Ver. 10. "Expere yap abr oi Ov Ta way7a Kal Ci ob Ta TdyTa, it became 
him, for whom all things [were made,] and by whom all things [were 
made ;] i. e. it became the supreme Lord and Creator of all things. The 
writer leaves his readers to feel and acknowledge the truth of this assertion, 
without stopping to offer proof of its correctness. The force of the 
appeal seems to lie in the tacit acknowledgment of all, that reward is 
properly consequent upon trial and approbation, and is not to be 
bestowed without them. Now, as Christ possessed a nature truly 
human, and as all men are, by the universal arrangement of a wise and 
overruling providence, subjected to trial; so it was proper or becoming 
in God, that Jesus should be subjected to trial in our nature, before he 
was advanced in it to glory. 

IlohAove viove ayayévra, k.7t. X. This part of the verse contains an 
involved construction of the words, in respect to their order. The 
arrangement of the sense I take to be as follows: "Expere yup air@ .... 
Oa Tadnparwy redeour Toy apxnyoyv Tic owrnpiac airay, ayaydvra 
modXove viovs eic Odkav. It became him, reXerWoar tov adpynyov. The word 
réXevoe means full grown, of mature age, either Kterally, or figuratively. 
In the latter sense it is employed in 1 Cor. ii. 6; however, we speak the 
doctrines of wisdom, éy roic redelore. So Heb. v. 14, comprehending, 
as it were, both the above senses, where it is opposed to vie. See 
also 1 Cor. xiv. 20. Eph. iv. 3, et alibi. Tédewog also means mature in 

x 


306 COMMENTARY ON HEB. It. 10. 


a moral sense, 1. e. integer, just, free from vices, perfect. It is alse, 
very naturally, used in a secondary sense, to denote a consummation or 
maturity of our nature and happiness in a better world; e. g. 1 Cor. 
xiil. 10. Hence the verb reXesdw, formed from the adjective réXetog; is 
often used to designate, exaltation to a state of reward or happiness in 
a future world. Among the Greeks, this verb was employed to designate 
the condition of those who, having run in the stadium, and proved to be 
victorious in the contest, were proclaimed as successful aywrisai, and 
had the honours and rewards of victory bestowed upon them. (So rédog 
is used by the Greeks for reward, i. e. consummation ; see Schleusner on 
reXetdw.) Such persons were rereXetwpévor. In asense like this is rehecdw 
usually employed, with reference to Jesus, throughout the epistle to the 
Hebrews. E.g. ch. v. 9, reAewelc, being advanced to a state of glory ; 
Vii. 28, rereAXeewpévoy, id. The same sense the word has, in the verse 
under examination. In ver. 9, the writer had said, that, on account of 
the suffering of death, Jesus was do& Kai rysh esepavwpévoy. Here he 
says, dw waSnparoy redevooar, on account of sufferings to exalt to glory, 
or, to bestow the highest honours. As the writer evidently says this, in 
commenting on the preceding expression, it is plain that da waSnpérwr 
rehewoar is merely an equivalent for dua ro raSnpa Tov Savarov Coén Kat 
Tih Esepavwpéevoy. So Theophylact; ‘‘ reAefwore here means, ddfay jy 
ed0édaSn.” 

Tov apynyov owrnpiac abréyv, auctor salutis, the author of salvation ; 
so it is usually interpreted. So Chrysostom, atric, 6 ry owrnpiay 
rexwy. Probably the phrase, doynyov owrnpiac avréy, may mean here, 
the same as dpynyov kal owrijpa in Acts y. 31, 1. e. their Prince and 
Saviour. In Acts iii. 15, aoxnyor rife wife is applied to Jesus; and in 
Heb. xil. 2, dpynydr rij¢ riorewc ; which would rather favour the first 
interpretation. The sense, however, seems to be substantially expressed, 
if we render, on account of sufferings, to exalt to a state of glory their 
Prince and Saviour. Thus understood, the passage contains admirable 
matter of exhortation to the Hebrew Christians, to persevere in their 
adherence to Christianity, amid all their trials and sufferings ; for Jesus 
their Prince and Saviour himself suffered, and was exalted to glory by 
his sufferings. If Jesus himself, then, exalted as he was, endured suf- 
fering, how could they expect to be exempt from it? Yet, if they per- 
severed in their adherence to him, like him they would be rereXewpévor. 

Ver. 11. “O,re yap ayidlwr Kal of dytaddpevor && Evdc mavrec. The 
word ay:agw seems not to have been well understood here, by most 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. WU. Il. 307 


commentators, and requires, in order to explain the sense in which it is 
used in our epistle, a particular investigation. ‘Aysé{w corresponds to 
the Hebrew WIP WTI, which often means, to consecrate to God as an 
offering ; e. g. Lev. i 9, 5 DWT , Sept. dyedZovat por; chap. 
xxii. 3, WIP, Sept. ee Exod. xiii. 2, WIP, Sept. &yiacor 
pot, et alibi. The verb WIP also means, by a cecical association of 
ideas, to expiate, to make atonement for; e.g. Job i. 5, DWP, he 
made atonement for them, where, however, the Sept. has éxaSdprZev 
avrove ; so Exod. xix. 10, 14, and Josh. vii. 13, according to Gesenius, 
where the Sept. has ayyoor, fyylace, and &yiacor. Comp. also Ezek. 
xliv. 19. The verb ayiéZw also corresponds, in the Septuagint, to the 
Hebrew 85, which is the appropriate word to designate the making of 
an atonement, to expiate ; e. g. Exod. xxix. 33, they shall eat those 
things, Oa 122 WR, with which expiation was made, Sept. éy oie 
fiyedoSynoay év abroie ; Exod. xxix. 36, and thou shalt purify the altar, 
voy 71222, when thou makest an expiatory sacrifice upon it, Sept. év 
rH ayddew ot éx airg. From the usus loquendi of the Hebrew and 
the Sept. it is plain, then, that dy.dw may mean to make expiation, 
to atone. 

Our epistle presents some plain instances of the use of ay:aZw in this 
sense. Eg. ch. x. 10, according to which will iyyacpévor éopev, we 
are atoned for, i. e. expiation is made for us. How? The writer 
immediately subjoins, dua rij¢e tpochopdc Tov cwparog “Inco Xpuorod 
épamaé; which necessarily refers fyycacpévoe to the propitiatory offering 
of Christ; and consequently it has the sense which I have given to it. 
So ch. xiii. 11, 12, ‘‘ For the bodies of those animals, whose blood was 
carried into the sanctuary by the high priest, as a sin-offering, were 
burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus, iva a&yaoy the people with 


” 


his own blood, suffered without the gate ;” where ay.aoy plainly means, 
to make expiation for, toatone for. Both of these passages compare 
well with that under consideration ; and all three predicate aysacpoec of 
the sufferings and death of Christ ; for in our context, in the very next 
preceding clause, the writer has spoken of Christ as rereXewwpévoy cra 
radnuarwy ; and he had just declared, that “ Jesus, by the grace of 
God, had tasted of death for all men.” 

We may then render 6,r¢ dysadwy Kal of dyrafopevor, both he who makes 
erpiation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made, pm BD WR: 
The usus loguendi of the epistle seems not merely to justify, ‘but to 


demand, this interpretation. 
x2 


308 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II 12. 


"RE évocg mavrec, i. e. have God for their common father. So most 
commentators. Some say, ‘‘ Have Adam for their father ;” 
“Abraham.” The context leads me to doubt whether any of these 
interpretations is correct. Ver. 14, et seq. very plainly refers to a com- 
munity of nature, and states the grounds or reason why such a commu- 


others, 


nity existed. "Ef évoc then means, that Christ, and those for whom he 
atoned by his sufferings, were é§ evdc yevovc, i. e€. possessed in common 
of the same nature, see ver. 14. The reasoning of the writer, when the 
words are thus understood, is altogether apposite. It seems to be this : 
«That Christ had a nature truly human, is no objection to regarding 
him as a Saviour exalted above the angels, and altogether adapted to the 
wants and woes of the human race. In the human nature he suffered, 
and was advanced to glory; in it he made atonement for men; in it he 
sustains a most endearing relation to those for whom he made expia- 
tion, he sympathizes with them, ver. 17, 18, and they are united to 
him as brethren having one common nature, é§ voc mayrec, kK. T. A. Ver. 
1i—13. 

Ai fv airlay . . . « Kadelv, on account of which, i. e. because he pos- 
sesses the same nature in common with them, he disdains not to call 
them his brethren. Ovx érayvverai, Chrysostom says, is used with 
regard to a person of higher rank, who condescends to associate with 
those of a lower standing. But if Christ were merely a man, and no- 
thing more, where (we may ask with Abresch) would be either the great 
condescension, or particular kindness, manifested in calling men his 
brethren? If, however, he possessed a higher nature, if ékévwoe Eavror, 
poppiyy dovNov AaBwy, Phil. ii. 7; if érameivwoe Eavroy, Phil. ui. 8; then 
was it an act of peculiar kindness and condescension in him, to call men 
his brethren. It is this high privilege, to which men have attained, that 
the apostle is endeavouring to establish and illustrate; and all this 
affords additional reason not to thmk diminutively of Jesus, as pos- 
sessing a human nature. 

Having introduced the proposition, that ‘‘ Christ, possessing a nature 
truly human, regards men as his brethren ;” the writer appeals, as is 
usual with him, to the Old Testament, in confirmation of this sentiment, 
and to show the Hebrews, that it is no new doctrine respecting the Mes- 
siah which he inculcates. 

Ver. 12. Aéywy, saying, i. e. since he (Christ) says : amayyedG, k. 7. 2. 
The passage is quoted from Ps. xxii. 22 [xxi. 22,] where, for the Hebrew 
MIDON, the LXX. have omyijoopar; instead of which, our text employs 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 13. 309 


its equivalent or synonyme, &rayyeh@. Such departures from the Sep- 
tuagint are very common, in the New Testament quotations. 


That the twenty-second Psalm relates to the Messiah, the Jews them- 
selves confess, (see Dindorf in loc.;) and the history of his death seems, 
indeed, to be a kind of practical commentary upon it. I can find no- 
thing in the Psalm which forbids the application of it to the Messiah; 
although I can find enough to satisfy me that it is quite inapplicable to 
David. The general conversion of the nations to God (ver. 27—32) 
accords well with the gospel dispensation, but not with the Jewish; which 
from its very nature could not be a universal religion; for how could all 
nations, from the extremities of the earth, ever go up three times in a 
year to Jerusalem, to worship and to offer sacrifice there? And can it 
be rationally supposed, that David uttered such words as those to which 
{ have just adverted, in reference merely to Judaism ? 

The whole object of the present quotation is merely to show, that 
Christ is exhibited in the Jewish Scriptures, as having recognized men 
as his brethren, adedpove. 

"Ev péoy éxxdyoiac ipriow ce, among the assembly will I praise 
thee, i.e. in or among the assembly of my brethren, of men, will I _ 
eelebrate thy praise. In the Hebrew, the words aNd and bap na 
correspond to each other, and are equivalent, as to “the subjects com- 
prised in them. The first part only of the apostle’s quotation, is 
directly to the point which he is labouring to illustrate and confirm; 
the second part, (as in many like cases,) is cited principally because 
of the intimate connexion which exists between it and the preceding 
parallelism, and because the memory of those whom he addressed 
would be assisted, by a quotation at large of the whole verse. 

Ver. 13. Kat radu, again the Scripture says, éyw tcopa rerorSig ex’ 
airo, I confide in him, or, I will confide in him. But whence is this 
quoted? In Ps. xviii. 3., the Hebsew has )2 MOMN which the LXX, 
render, éXri ai7@; in 2 Sam. xxii. 3, the same ‘Hebrew words occur, 
which they render according to the phraseology of our text, rerowSwe 
Ecopar éx’ avr@. Some critics have defended the opinion, that the 
quotation of the apostle is from one of these passages. But as it 
is plain, not only that the Messiah is not described or alluded to in 
these passages, but also that the Jews have never been accustomed to 
interpret them as referring to him; so there is surely no need of de- 
fending this position, if another passage as apposite as these can be 
found, which is less exceptionable in regard to its application. Critics 


310 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Il. 14. 


are pretty generally agreed, therefore, that Isa. vill. 17, is quoted, the 
Hebrew of which is 49 ‘FP, the Septuagint version of which is the 
same as our quotation. This, considered in connexion with the quo- 
tation immediately following, (which is taken from Isa. vili. 18,) ren- 
ders it altogether probable, that the writer had this place of scripture, 
rather than either of the others, in his mind, when he made the two 
quotations in question. The Hebrew 1) ‘P}, may be rendered, I wll 
wait for him, or, I will trust in him. The latter is adopted by the 
Septuagint, and by the apostlo. 

Kai wadly idod, x.7r.d. has been adduced as an argument that the 
passage quoted here must be from a different part of scripture, and not 
from the same with that of the quotation immediately preceding. But 
this does not follow; for in this same epistle, ch. x. 30, a quotation 
is made from Deut. xxxii. 35, and another from Deut. xxxii. 36, with 
kat wadwv between them as here. In such acase, xai radu is to be 
rendered, and further, or, and moreover. 

The argument in this case appears to be this. ‘ Men exercise trust 
or confidence in God. This is predicated of them as dependent, and 
possessing a feeble nature. The same thing is predicated of the Mes- 
siah; and consequently he possesses a nature like theirs, and there- 
fore they are his brethren ; 2& évdc wayrec.’ See Excursus X. 

Ver. 14. Kexowarynxe capxoce kal aipuroc, participated in flesh and 
blood, i.e. possessed a human nature, a body made up of flesh and 
blood. See 1 Cor. xv. 50. Eph. vi. 12; and comp. Matt. xvi. 17. 
Gal. i. 16. Sirach xiv. 18. The children, radia, here mentioned, are 
the same that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the disciples, 
the spiritual children of the Messiah, 

Kai airoe rapatAnoiwe peréoxe TOY AUTO. Here peréoye is a syn- 
onyme of kexowwynxe, participated mm. Tapardnoiwe is equivalent to 
dpoiwe, in the same manner as, as well as. The Docete exchanged zapa- 
mhyaiwe here for épotwe, and then construed opoiwe as indicating only 
an appearance similar to flesh and blood; in opposition to whom the 
Christian fathers maintained that zapa7Ansiwe signified ov doxntc adX’ 
aynSwec, ov pavracruKwc aX ovTwe. 

Tév airéy, i.e. capkog Kat aiparoc. The meaning is, that Christ 
had a natural body, truly corporeal and mortal. With this he was 
endowed, in order that he might suffer death in it, and by that 
death vancuish the spiritual enemy of mankind, the great adversary 
of souls. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 15. 3il 


"Iva Gia Savdrov . . . rov duaforov, that by his death he might 
subdue him who has a deadly power, that is, the devil. Karapyéw is 
scarcely used by Greek writers, and, when it is employed, it has the 
sense of delaying, rendering inactive, hindering, i. q. éumrodiZew, which 
is used to explain it, by the Scholiast on Eurip. Pheniss. 760. In 
this sense, it is often used in the Apocrypha. In the New Testament, 
the use of the word is not unfrequent; but with some latitude of 
signification, as may be seen by the lexicons. Here it means, fo 
render inefficacious, or, to subdue, viz. Satan, the spiritual enemy of 
man, who has a deadly power; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 24—26. 2 Tim. i. 10. 
I understand rév 76 xpdroc rov Savdrou exovra, in this plain and simple 
manner; which renders all the speculations, about the power of the 
devil to inflict the sentence of natural death upon men, unnecessary ; 
and equally so, all the efforts to show what the Rabbins have taught 
about Sammael, the angel of death, YI INN. That a deadly 
power, i, e. a power of leading men to sin, and consequently of bring- 
ing them under sentence of spiritual death, is ascribed to Satan in the 
New Testament, is sufficiently plain: see John xvi. 11; xii. 31; xiv. 
a0, Eph. i. 23 vi. 12. Col. ik 15.2 Cor. iv. 4; ét alibi.” In PJohn 
iii. 8, is a passage altogether of the same tenour as ours. To render 
null the deadly power of Satan, is to prevent the effects of it as bring- 
ing men to incur the sentence of spiritual death, i. e. to redeem them 
from the effects of such a sentence, or to redeem them from the curse 
of the law, Gal. ili. 13; comp. Rom. v. 9. seq. 1 Thess. i. 10. Even 
the temporal consequences of death are removed by Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 
26. 45. 52, seq. Thus interpreted, we have a plain sense of the pas- 
sage, and one analogous to numerous other parts of the Scriptures. 

Ver. 15. Kai araddaky rovrove . . . dovdreiac, and free those [from 
condemnation,| who, during their whole lives, though fear of con- 
demnation, had been exposed to a state of bondage. ”Amadaén means 
primarily, to remove, to depel, to depart. But here, (as sometimes in 
classic authors,) it means, to free, to liberate. So Theophylact, édev- 
Onpwoa. 1t may be questionable, whether it is connected with Savaro¢ 
understood, or with govdeta. Either way of construing it would make 
good sense, and be apposite to the design of the writer. I have pre- 
ferred to connect it with Sdvaroc, because of the sentiment, in the pre- 
ceding verse, which respects the Savaroy inflicted by Satan, i. e. the 
condemning sentence of the law incurred in consequence of sin, com- 
mitted through the wiles or temptation of Satan. 


312 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1. 16. 


©é6y Savarov, I understand as referring to the fear of that condem- 
nation or punishment, to which sin exposes men; not to the fear of 
natural death; an evil from which no precaution can deliver us, and 
which Christians as well as others must suffer, notwithstanding the 
death of Christ. But the death of Christ has freed them from suffer- 
ing that condemnation or punishment which they feared, in a future 
life. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the writer; although it 
has been generally overlooked. 

Act wayroe Tod Zijy, 1. q. Ou waone ric Zwijc, the infinitive mode being 
here used, as it often is in the Greek classics, as a mere noun. But it is 
not the usage of the older Greek writers, to put the infinitive nominascens 
after an adjective, as here. We may, therefore, understand ypdvov as 
implied after wayrdg The later Greek, however, affords examples like 
ours; @. g. 70 ddvakpitoy Civ, To adnSwor Cijy, ék Tov mpoKeypévou Cy, 
Ignat. Ep. ad. Trall. 

"Evoxot joay Sovrelac, had been subjected, [obnoxious, exposed] ¢o ser- 
vitude, i.e. subject to a depressed and miserable condition, like that of 
slaves under a tyrannical master. ”Evoyoc comes from évéxoua, ad- 
stringor, and so means, adstrictus, alligatus. It usually governs the 
dative, as Matt. v. 21, 22, bis; and thus in classic writers. But it also 
governs the genitive, as here; e. g. Matt. xxvi. 66. Mark ili. 29; xiv. 
64. 1 Cor. xi. 27. James ii. 10. Aovdeiag means, the servile and 
depressed condition of those who are exercised with the fear of death, 
i.e. of future misery. It is the death of Christ which delivers them from 
the condemnation, the anticipation or fear of which had often, during 
their lives, depressed them, or made them unhappy. Comp. John viii. 
32, 35, where, however, the dovAeia referred to is the servitude of sin. 
Here it is the condition, into which the fear of future condemnation casts 
Christians. 

The deliverance spoken of, is accomplished by anticipation here, Rom. 
viii. 14, 17; but fully and finally, in another world, where the pious are 
admitted to a state of confirmed happiness. Acai mavrog rov Civ Evoxor 
cay Sovdeiac, does not necessarily imply, that the whole time of life had 
been actually occupied with a state of fear and depression, dovAeiac; but 
that during the whole of it, those who are delivered had been, more or 
less, exposed to agitation by fears of this nature. From the object of 
such fears Christ delivers, or will deliver, them; and this is the simple 


sentiment of the text. 
Ver. 16. Ov yap dhrov ayyéwy émrapPaverar, besides, he did not 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 16. 313 


extend aid at all to the angels ; another reason why he took on him a 
nature that was human. He came to the aid of man; he became like 
him, so as the xro0re intimately to sympathize with him, and to help him. 
Anrov, profecto, omnimodo, certe, strengthens the affirmation, i. e. gives 
intensity to it. “ExAapPaverac, lit. to grasp, or, to take hold of with 
the hand. Hence, figuratively, (1.) To assert one’s right toa thing; to 
lay hold of tt as one’s own; and (2.) To aid, help, succaur, to take hold 
of when falling, or in danger. In the Septuagint, it answers to the 
Hebrew pitt, TIN; wh. The Christian fathers have applied it to the 
assumption of an angelic nature, which they suppose the writer here 
denies. But the wsus loquendi is against this; and the context also. 
For the apostle had just asserted above, that Jesus took on him a mature 
human ; and it would be mere repetition of the same sentiment here, if 
we construe ver. 16 as meaning thus: ‘‘ He did not assume the angelic 
nature, but that of the seed of Abraham.” But if the argument be, that 
*¢ Jesus assumed the human nature, because he was to aid men and not 
angels,’”’ then the sixteenth verse contains a reason why the Saviour did 
and should take on him the nature of man; viz. that it was altogether 
accordant with the great object of his mission. 

Lrépparoc ’ABoaap, progeny of Abraham. In such a sense, profane 
as well as sacred writers use orépua. Is it the natural or spiritual seed 
of Abraham, which is here meant? Either will make good sense, and 
agree with the object of the writer. Believers are the children of 
Abraham, Gal. ii. 7; and Gentiles as well as Jews, Rom. iv. 12—18; 
ix. 7,8; ii. 29, 30. So, the assertion that Christ died, izép zayroc, 
(ver. 9,) does not disagree with the assertion that he helped the seed of 
Abraham, who are both Jews and Gentiles. But, although this inter- 
pretation may be sufficiently justified to render it worthy of acceptation, 
I am inclined to believe, that it does not give the original sense of the 
writer. He is addressing Jews. He says, ‘‘ Christ had a human nature ; 
this it behoved him to possess, for he came to help the seed of Abraham, 
i.e. those who, being descended from Abraham, possessed a nature that 
was human.” His assertion extends merely to such as he was address- 
ing. But surely this would not imply a denial that he helped any 
others, who were possessed of the same nature. So far is it from this, 
that it implies the contrary; for the amount of the assertion is, ‘‘ He 
came to help those who possessed a nature such as that which he had 


assumed.” 


314 COMMENTARY ON HEB. ll. 17. 


Ver. 17. "OSev, an illative particle, whence, i.e. because he was to 
help the seed of Abraham. "“Ogerre...... dpowSiva, he must needs be 
made like unto his brethren, i.e. to men, ver. 1|O—12. Kara zarra, 
i. e. in all things requisite to constitute a nature truly human. The 
meaning is, that he should be wanting in none of the innocent infirmi- 
ties, and in none of the sympathies, of man’s nature. To deduce more 
than this from the expression now in question, would be to do what the 
writer plainly never designed should be done. 

But why? “Iva éXehpwy yévnrae kat misdc apxtepevc, that he might be 
a compassionate and faithful high priest. ’ENehpwy, merciful, sympa- 
thizing with those who are in distress. As those are best adapted to do 
this, who have themselves been sufferers; so Jesus took on him our 
nature, in order that he might suffer in it. Tlusde¢ is either faithful, or, 
worthy of trust or confidence. In the former sense I take it here. Jesus 
assumed our nature, that he might qualify himself in a peculiar manner 
to exercise compassion toward us; and that he might discharge with 
fidelity the duty laid upon him as our high-priest. A priest to offer 
sacrifice for us, must be homogeneous with us. Such a priest was Jesus, 
faithful in discharging the duties of his office. What were those duties ? 
They were ra mpocg tov Geov, things which had respect to God, i. e. 
services of a religious nature. The phrase misdc......7& mpdc Tov Qeor, 
is elliptical. In full, it would be thus: xara ra mpdypara ra mpdc rov 
Gcoy, faithful as to things, &c. 

But what things were these? “IdoxeoSac rae Gyrapriac rot Naod. The 
common expression is, éAdoacfae wept two; as in Lev. iv. 20. 26. 
31.35; or, éddoacSe repi ric dyapriac roc, Lev. v. 13; iv. 35. But 
éiikdoacSar drapriac also occurs, Dan. ix. 24. 1 Sam. ii. 14. Sirach 
xxviii. 5. ‘IAdoxopae means, to render propitious, to appease. But 
this sense it can have directly only when the person appeased is 
expressed, or understood, after the verb. Hence ttdoxecSae apaprinue 
must mean the same as NRWIT 12: to make appeasement for sin, to 
cover sin, to make atonement for it. The Septuagint sometimes translate 
DD by Adoxopa. Christ, then, as high-priest, was faithful to perform 
the peculiar duty of that office, which was, on the great day of atone- 
ment, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. How 
he did this, is shewn in the sequel of the epistle. Here, only so much is 
asserted, as was requisite to enforce the considerations which the writer 


had immediately in view. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Il. 18. 315 


Ver. 18. "Ey @ yap, for since, i. q. dre yap, Hebrew WNA,, because 
that, inasmuch as. WlerovSev avrocg repacSeic, he himself suffered 
when exercised with trials. Weipagw means fo try, to put to the proof, 
in order to ascertain the disposition purpose, capacity, &c. of any one. 
This trial may be, (1.) For a good purpose ; by subjecting one to any 
evils or dangers, as God tried (710)) Abraham, Gen, xxii. 1; or, by 
placing him in circumstances either prosperous or adverse, that are of a 
peculiar nature, as God did Israel, Exod. xvi. 4. Judg. ii, 22. Trial 
may be, (2.) For an evil purpose; as the Pharisees érefpacay "Inooiy, 
by proposing to him ensnaring and subtile questions, Matt. xix. 3, seq. ; 
xxii. 18, 36, et seepe; or, by laying before any one inducements to sin, 
as Satan does before the minds of men, 1 Cor. vii. 5. 1 Thess. iii. 5; 
comp. Jamesi. 13,14. In both of these senses, Christ was tried. <¢¢ It 
pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief,” Isa. liii. 10; 
and, ‘‘ It became him, for whom and by whom are all things, to advance 
to glory our Prince and Saviour,” dca raSnparwy, Heb. ii. 10. The 
same Saviour was solicited by Satan to sin, Matt. iv. 1, 3. Marki. 13. 
Luke iv. 2. Understood in either way, then, the Saviour was tempted 
in like manner as we are, (cara wavyra, ka dpodrnra, Heb. iv. 15,) 
though without sin. That he did not yield to any excitement to sin, 
was owing to the strength of his virtue and holiness, not to the weakness 
of the temptation in itself considered. Temptation, in the second sense, 
is that which is presented to the mind as an inducement to sin, and does 
not relate to the actual state of the mind or person to which it is pre- 
sented. Men tempt God; they tempt Christ; and so did Satan; but 
there never was any disposition in Christ to yield to it. 

There are two or three cases, however, in which the word zepélo 
seems to denote yielding to sin, i. e. having the effect of tetpacpd¢g pro- 
duced upon one; e. g. Gal. vi. 1, perhaps James i. 14; comp. azei- 
pacroc, not induced to sin, in James i, 13. But this is an wnwsual sense 
of the word zerpaZw and altogether inapplicable to the Saviour, who 
was ‘separate from sinners,” Heb. vii. 26. Christ then, zewpacSeic, 
being proved, both by sufferings and by solicitations to sin, cvvarat roic 
metpacgopevore onSijoat, is fitted in a peculiar manner to succour those 
who undergo either kind of trial. He is not only possessed of a mer- 
ciful regard for them, (ver. 17,) but he has direct and immediate sym- 
pathy with them, the result of his own personal feeling and experience. 
Wonderful condescension of redeeming love! Here lies the great mys- 
tery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh. And while Jesus 


316 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. I. 


sits on the throne of the universe, Lord over all, the Christian is reminded, 
that he does this in his nature, as his brother, ver. 11. In the person of 
Jesus, man is exalted above the angels; yea, he himself is to attain a 
rank superior to theirs; for while Jesus passed them by, (ver. 16,) he 
laid down his life for us, in order to exalt us above them, 1 Cor. vi. 3. 
Deeper and deeper still becomes the mystery. The debt of gratitude 
appears boundless, when viewed in this light ; the baseness of our ingra- 
titude and disobedience as boundless too; and all that we can do is to 
lie down in the dust, overwhelmed with a sense of them, exclaiming at 
the same time with the prophet, ‘‘ Who is like unto thee? A God for- 
giving iniquity, and passing by the offences of thine heritage 2” 


Next to the consideration, that the “law was dtaraysic ov ayyédwy,” the grounds 
of its pre-eminence in the estimation of the Jews were, the exalted character of Moses, 
and the dignity and offices of the high-priest, who was the instrument of reconciling 
the people to God, when they had lost his favour by sinning. In respect to both these 
points, the apostle undertakes to show that the gospel has a preference, because that 
Jesus is superior. If he be compared with Moses as mw, azécrodoc, curator edis 
sacra, (oixov, ver. 2, 3;) he will be found to excel him. If he be compared with 
the high priest, his superiority, in every respect, is equally visible. The first compa- 
rison is made in ch. iii. 2—6, and the warning against defection from the gospel that 
immediately follows it, is continued through ch. iii. 7—19, toiv. 13. The writer then 
proceeds with the comparison of Christ as high priest, and extends it through the 
remainder of the doctrinal part of the epistle. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. “OSev, whence, 1. q. eva rovro, by which Chrysostom expresses 
the sense of it. It refers to place, in common usage; but it is also 
illative, particularly in our epistle. 

The manner in which the writer makes his transition here, from one 
topic to another, is deserving of notice. He had just been showing 
how and why Christ was a ‘ merciful and faithful high priest, and able 
to succour all who are tempted.” He now adds, dev, i. e. allowing 
these things to be true, it follows, that we are under peculiar obli- 
gation to contemplate and well examine the Saviour’s character, 
before we venture to reject him. But in making this suggestion, the 
writer at the same moment introduces new topics for discussion, viz. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 111. 1. 317 


the comparison of Christ with Moses, and with the high-priest under 
the Jewish dispensation. The transition is almost insensible, as it 
is actually introduced under the form of a deduction from the preceding 
discussion. 

"AdeAgol, as applied by Christians to each other, means, one of the 
same faith or profession, with the adjunct idea of possessing a friendly, 
brotherly feeling, Acts ix. 30; xi. 29. 1 Cor. v. 11, al. "Aytot, con~ 
secrated, devoted, i. e. to Christ, se¢ apart as Christians. So I under- 
stand this appellation. Holy, in the sense of possessing internal 
purity, the apostle did not mean to affirm that all were, whom he ad-. 
dressed; for surely, when the ancient prophets called the whole 
Jewish nation DWI) (yor), or wiTP DY (Aade &ywc), they did not 
mean to assert that every individual among them was spiritually sanc- 
tified. But to remind his brethren, (brethren in a double sense here, 
as they were also the writer’s kindred according to the flesh), that they 
had been consecrated to Christ, and set apart as his disciples, was 
altogether adapted to prepare them for the exhortation to fidelity 
which ensues. In a like sense, the ancient prephets called the whole 
body of the Jewish nation holy, WIT). 

KAjoewe éxovpariou péroxor, lit. partakers of the heavenly invitation. 
KXjjore is the invitation given on the part of God and Christ to men, 
to come and partake of the blessings proffered by the Christian 
religion. It does not appear, however, to designate the offers of the 
gospel, generally considered, and in reference to all men without dis- 
crimination ; for it is applied in the New Testament only to those 
who by profession are Christians. K)jjorc, then, is the proffer of bless- 
ings to such; the znvitation given to all the professed friends of the 
Christian religion, to accept the favours which the Redeemer is ready 
to bestow, in case of their obedience. The epithet érovpaviov may 
mean, in this case, that the blessings proffered are of a celestial nature. 
So Wahl and others, who compare the phrase with rije évw kdhoewe, 
Phil. iii. 14. Thus interpreted, the implication of the passage would 
be, that the proffered blessings of the gospel were éxovpéma, in dis- 
tinction from those offered under the law, i. e. they are of a higher, 
more spiritual, more sublime nature. But éxovpayiov may also mean, 
that the kAjoue was given from heaven, i. e. by one from heaven, viz. 
Christ; comp. ch. xii. 25, and ii. 3. Understood in either way, it is 
apposite to the purpose of the writer, and well adapted to urge upon 
his readers their obligation to adhere to the Christian religion. 


318 COMMENTARY ON HEB. It. I. 


Karavonoare, observe well, consider attentively, perpendite, ad 
animum revocate ; and this, in order that they might not be tempted 
to swerve from their fidelity to Christ, out of excessive regard to the 
Mosaic institutes ; for Christ, as the writer proceeds to show, was in ali 
respects superior to Moses. 

Tov a&rdorodov . . . typov, the apostle and high priest of our rele- 
gion. The appellation a@méorodov, (which is a dag Aeyopevoy as 
applied to Christ,) has given rise to much philological and critical dis- 
cussion. The word itself may convey two ideas, nearly related, but 
not identical. (1.) ’Awéorodoc is equivalent to 6 admeszadpévoc; as 
Thomas Magister explains it, quoting Demosthenes as employing it 
in this manner. It means, then, any messenger, any person commis- 
sioned or sent to perform duties of any kind for another, and par- 
ticularly to make known his will, desire, or command ; in which sense 
it is commonly employed by the New Testament writers. (2.) The 
Jews applied the term mow, (from mw mittere), to the minister of 
the synagogue, i. e. the person who presided over it, and directed all 
its officers and affairs, the curator of all its concerns, edituus, negotii, 
edis sacre curator. See Buxtorf Lex. Chald. verbum mou, and 
Vitringa de Vet. Synag. Lib. III. p. ii.c. 2. In either of these senses 
it may be understood, in the passage under consideration. Inter- 
preted agreeably to the first sense of ardsodoc, the meaning would be, 
that Christ is the messenger of God to men, in order to communicate 
his will, and to accomplish the business to be done for the establish- 
ment of the new dispensation. But the particular reason why he is 
called a&zdésoXoc here, lies, probably, in the comparison which the writer 
is about to make of Jesus, the head of the new dispensation, with 
Moses the head of the old. When Moses received a divine commission 
to become the leader and head of the Israelites, God says to him, 
pan Ww, I have sent thee; which idea is frequently repeated, Exod. 
iii. 10. 12. 14,15. Moses then was mut, amdsodoc, In respect to this 
important business. Jesus, in like manner, was sent on an errand of 
the like kind, but of still greater importance. He was sent by the 
Father for this purpose, John ili. 34; v. 36, 37; Vi. 29%: m. .cOswade 
Now, as the writer was just about to make a comparison between Christ 
and Moses, it was very natural that he should call Christ arésoNoy, 1. e. 
one sent or commissioned of God, because Moses was thus sent; as the 
passages above cited prove. 

We might acquiesce in this explanation, as most interpreters have done, 


"COMMENTARY ON HEB. I11. 1 319 


were it not that one still better may be found, in the supposition that 
améorodog is here employed in the second or Jewish sense, explained 
above. The apostle proceeds immediately to speak of Moses and of 
Christ as presiding over, and administering the affairs of, the oicoc, com- 
mitted respectively to them (ver. 2—4;) i.e. each was a WANT mous, 
dyyedoc éxxAnolac, curator, edis sacre, améboroXoe in the Jewish sone 
This certainly gives a meaning more apposite to the context, and, 
indeed, a sense which, in connexion with it, seems to be a necessary one. 
The general idea of being sent of God, or divinely commissioned, is 
retained ; inasmuch as Moses was thus sent and commissioned, and with 
him the comparison is made. The meaning then is, that if the curator 
edis sacre et nove be compared with the curator edis sacre et antique, 
the result will be such as the sequel discloses. 

Kai dpxeepéa, high priest. Two reasons may be given for this appel- 
lation: the one, that in Ps. cx. 4, the Messiah is so named; the other, 
that the writer means to compare him, in the sequel, as making atone- 
ment for men by the propitiatory sacrifice which he offered, with the high 
priest of the Jews who made expiation for the people. The latter I 
regard as the principal reason of the appellation here. 

Tig oporoyiac hpay, of our profession, or confession ; i. e. the apostle 
and high priest whom we have confessed or acknowledged as ours. This 
they had done, when they became Christians. ‘Oodoyiac is used here 
as an adjective or participle; and the phrase is equivalent to azdcrodov 
hydy Kat apytepéa dpooyoipevoy, i. e. the apostle and high priest rije 
moTewe Hy (as Chrysostom paraphrases it,) in whom we have believed, 
or whom we have acknowledged as ours. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 13, ry 
irorayn Tic Sporoylac tpor, your professed subjection; Heb. x. 23; 
‘vy. 14. 

Others take 6podoyéac in the sense of covenant, 32, which the word 
sometimes has in profane writers; see Schleus. Lex. in verbum. This 
sense of the word would not be inapposite here, inasmuch as it would 
convey the idea of an engagement or covenant made with Christ, by 
those whom the apostle is addressing. But as this use of the word is 
not found in the New Testament, it would hardly be proper to admit 
it here. 

The writer now proceeds to show the reason why the Hebrews ought 
attentively to regard Jesus, in respect to the two great points of com- 
parison which he had hinted at, by applying to him the epithets amégro- 
dog and apxtepere. 


320 COMMENTARY ON HEB. U1. 2, 3. 


Ver. 2. Muordv, faithful, i. e. he fully and truly performed the duties 
of his station. See ch. ii. 17, where, in like manner, he is called mord¢ 
apytepeve. Others interpret msrdc, entrusted with, or, worthy of trust; 
a sense, indeed, which the word sometimes has ; but it is not so apposite 
here. To roujoaryre avroy, to him who constituted or appointed him, 
viz. axdéorodov ; to him who sent him, John x. 36; to him who made 
him mow, curator edis sacre. So éxoinoe, Mark iil. 14. 

To olKe avrov, his house, i. e. family, meaning the Jewish nation, or, 
his worshipping people. Ovxo, evidently does not mean temple here, 
for that was not built in the time of Moses; nor does it mean tabernacle, 
for over that Aaron presided, and not Moses. It means, then, the spi- 
ritual house committed to Moses, i. e. the Jewish nation who were to be 
guided, regulated, and instructed, in spiritual things, by the revelations 
which he gave them. So Chrysostom, who substitutes Xaoy as an expla- 
nation of oixov. So in English, we use house for family, and church 
(oixoc Seov) for the worshippers in it. It is, moreover, only in this way, 
that a comparison can be made between Moses and Christ; as the latter 
was not the minister of any literal house, but curator edis Dei sacre 
et spiritualis. Comp. 1 Tim. ili. 15. 1 Pet. i. 5. otxog mvevparexde. 
Eph. ii. 20—22. Heb. ii. 6. 

The sentiment of ver. 2, is, that with regard to fidelity in discharging 
the duties of his office, as head of the new dispensation, Christ yields 
not in any respect to Moses, who (as the Scripture testifies, Num. xii. 7,) 
was faithful in respect to all his duties toward the people of God, that 
were committed to his care. In ¢hzs respect there is no inferiority. In 
another respect, however, Christ may justly claim great superiority over 
Moses, as the writer now goes on to show. 

Ver. 3. Adéne, honour, dignity, regard ; governed in the genitive by 
Hiiwrat. “Héiwrat, is worthy, deserves, is counted worthy. ’Atww also 
means, not unfrequently, to obtain, to acquire ; e.g. ot Katakwévrec 
Tig TOU mvEevparoc xaptToc, those who have obtained the grace of the 
Spirit, Chrysostom, I. p. 730. Tie éxvyvw@oewe Tov oytoc pu) Karakwov- 
pevoc, not having obtained a knowledge of what is real, Basil I. p. 515. 
In a similar way, it is also used in the classics ; as réy peyiorwy atot- 
fievoc, having obtained the greatest honours, Lys. Orat. p. 101. ed. 
Taylor. But still, this is not the usual sense of the word; nor does it 
so well fit the passage under consideration, as the other and usual mean- 
ing, although many commentators have preferred it. Adi rapa Mwiofy, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. ill. 2. 3972, 


glory in comparison with Moses, as in Hebrew mwa ad, See on 
ch. i. 4, 9, where zapa is employed in the same way. 

Ka éo0v may signify, ¢x proportion as, as much as, and may have 
relation here to zXelovoc in the first member of the verse. The usual 
Greek method of expression in such cases is résy....doy, &e. But I 
prefer the sense given in the version, because the nature of the proposi- 
tion seems to require it. So Schulz, Eng. Version, alii. 

TiNeiova rey, Kk. td. he who builds a house, has more honour than the 
house ; i. e. the difference between the honour due to Moses and that due 
to Christ, is as great as between the honour due to the founder of a house 
[family] and that which should be paid to the family which he founds ; 
or, between the honour due to the architect that framed a building, and 
that due to the building itself. It is difficult to say in which of these 
senses the writer meant that the words should be taken. Either fits his 
purpose. Either is designed to show that Christ, at the same time that 
he is the head of the new spiritual house, is also the founder of it; while 
Moses, who was at the head of the ancient spiritual house, was himself 
only one of the household. As a steward or overseer of a house, while 
he is curator of all in the house, is still but a servant; so Moses, as is 
asserted in ver. 5, was but a servant; while Christ, who was curator, 
was also son, and therefore ‘ heir and lord of all.’ The point of com- 
parison between Moses and Christ, in which the latter appears to have a 
decided preference, is not the being at the head of God’s house or 
family, (for such an office Moses sustained ;) but it consists in this, viz. 
that while Moses was curator, he was also Separwy; but while* Christ 
was curator, he was at the same time vidc, and carackevdarne oiKov. 

Karacxevacw means, to furnish, to fit up, to make ready, i.e. for use ; 
also, to construct, prepare, build, condere, exstruere. In some cases it 
seems to combine the idea of constructing and furnishing, both of which 
indeed are included under the general idea of preparing or making ready 
for use; e. g. Heb. ix. 2—6. The LXX. sometimes used this word, in 
order to translate e. ¢. MWY, in Prov. xxiii. 5. 2 Chron. xxxii. 5; some- 
times they employed it as corresponding to N73, as in Isa xl, 28; xiii. 7, 
So the book of Wisdom ix. 2, ‘‘ By thy wisdom carackevacac roy avSpw- 
xov, thou hast created [formed] man.” In our text, karaoxevaoac abrov, 
scil. olcov, is equivalent to the Latin, condere domum. But as oikog here 
means, family, household, so xaracxevacac must be taken in a sense that 
will correspond to this, viz. that of establishing, instituting, founding ; 
which is evidently the meaning of the phrase. 

>'6 


322 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 4. 


Others render the last clanse of the verse thus: inasmuch as he whe 
founded the household hath greater honour from the house, uwnder- 
standing zy) otkov to be the honour which the house renders, and thus 
making otxov dependent on zyu)v instead of wAefova. Storr translates the 
whole verse thus: For Christ hath a preference above Moses, the 
greater, 7n proportion as this house 7s more highly estimated by its 
founder. But these methods of rendering, (to say nothing of the impro- 
bable and forced construction which they give to the language of the 
verse,) would constrain us to lose sight of the apodosis, which the latter 
part of the verse evidently contains. <‘‘ Christ,”’ says the apostle, “ has 
more glory than Moses.”” How? or, how much more? The answer is: 
“* As much more as is due to the founder of a family, [or, to the architect 
of a building,] above that which is to be paid to the family itself, [or, to 
the edifice which is reared.”] In other words, Christ is to be honoured 
as the head and founder of the oikoc which has been erected ; Moses, 
only as the head; for he himself was still a part of the otkog itself, dc 
Sepazwy, ver. 5. Interpreted in any other way, the whole force of the 
comparison seems to vanish. In this way it is (to say the least) intel- 
ligible, if not quite simple. If the reader wishes to see the endless dis- 
crepancies among critics about this and the following verse, he may con- 
sult Wolfii Cure Philol., or Dindorf’s edition of Ernesti in Ep. ad 
Hebreos. 

Ver. 4. This verse has been a kind of offendiculum criticorum in past 
ages, and has never yet, in any commentary which I have seen, been 
satisfactorily illustrated. The difficulty lies, not in the simple sentiment 
of the verse by itself considered, (for there is none in this respect ;) nor 
in the words, which in themselves are not obscure; but in discovering 
and explaining the connexion in which this verse stands with the context, 
and how it modifies or affects it. If the verse be entirely omitted, and 
the third verse be immediately connected with the fifth, there seems to be 
nothing wanting, nothing omitted that is at all requisite to finish the 
comparison which the writer is making. Nay, on account of the dif- 
ficulty which adheres to the fourth verse, the mind is greatly relieved by 
the omission of it; and little is then presented, which raises doubts or 
scruples about the object of the writer. There is no evidence, however, 
that the verse in question is a mere gloss; at least, none from manu- 
scripts or versions that is of any value. We must receive it, then, as a 
part of the text, the integrity of which (however difficult the passage 
may be) cannot be made to depend on our ability to explain it 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 4. 323 


Ild¢ yap otxog.... Sedc, I translate thus: every house must have 
some builder, or, is built by some one ; and he who formed all things is 
God. But what are the all things (ra zavra) which are formed or 
built? The universe? Or all otxou, all dispensations, viz. both the 
Jewish and Christian? The context seems to demand the latter mean- 
ing. The former has common usage in its favour. Is it appropriate to 
construe it agreeably to this usage? It is directly to the writer’s pur- 
pose, if he can show, that every dispensation must of necessity have 
some founder, and that this founder was Christ. But how is this shown ? 
To say that God, simply considered, was the author of all things, would 
not be to show that Christ was the founder of the Jewish and Christian 
oixot. Indeed, I can see no possible connexion of this proposition with 
the object which the writer has in view. Nor can I see how Christ is 
shown by him to be a founder at all, unless I understand him to assert 
this to be the fact, because Christ is divine, or is Qedc. The argument 
would then stand thus: ‘ God is the author of all things, (and, by con- 
sequence, of the Jewish and Christian otxoe ) Christ is God; of course he 
must be regarded as the original author or founder of these dispensa- 
tions.” The fact itself that Christ is Ozdc, the writer surely could not 
hesitate to assert, after what he has said, ch. i. 8—12. John i. 1, 
asserts the same thing; as Paul also does, in Rom. ix. 5, and in other 
places. I must regard the expression here, as predicated on what the 
writer had said in ch. i. respecting the Son. The amount, then, cf the 
reasoning seems to be: ‘‘ Consider that Christ, as Ord¢ and the former 
of all things, must be the author too of the Jewish and Christian dis- 
pensations; which shows that a glory belongs to him, not only in his 
mediatorial office, and as being at the head of the new dispensation, but 
also as the founder both of this and the Jewish dispensation, in his 
divine character; while Moses is to be honoured only as the head of the 
Jewish dispensation, in the quality of a commissioned superintendent, 
but not as author and founder.” 

All other methods of constructing this passage fail of making it con- 
tribute to the writer’s purpose; and this is, with me, an insuperable 
objection against them. To make Ocdc, in ver. 4, refer simply to God 
the Father, is, at least, making the apostle say something very different 
from what contributes to his purpose, if it be not at variance with it. 
I propose this exegesis, however, only as being that which, after repeated 
investigations, I have felt myself constrained to adopt by the reasoning 
in the context, and the design of the writer; not as one so indubitably 

Y2 


824 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ill. 5. 


clear as to admit of no specious objection. The whole passage 1s so 
obscure, that no one can reasonably expect, as yet, a very convincing 
interpretation of it. If probability can be attained, it is as much as can 
be fairly demanded, at present. 

Ver. 5. "Ev ddwr@ otky abrod, in all his house ; not éxt roy otxoy abrod, 
over his house, as it is expressed in the following verse, where the writer 
speaks of Christ. I think the writer means here to make a distinction, 
by these different modes of expression, between the relation of Moses to 
the house in which he was Separwy, and that of Christ to the house over 
which he was as vidc. The former was éy rw oixw, in the house, i. e. he 
himself belonged to the family of God, was simply a member of it in the 
capacity of Separwv; while the latter was ézi roy oixoy, over the house, 
i. e. lord of the house, founder and proprietor of it. 

Airov, HIS, i. e. God’s house, both im ver. 2, and here. God’s 
household means, those who profess to be his worshippers, to belong 
to him. In both cases, airov might refer to Christ, were it not that 
in Numb. xii. 7, (from which the passage is quoted) the language is, 
my house, ‘2; and it is God who says this. The sense, however, 
would not be materially changed, by referring avrov to Christ. The 
scope of the sentence does not depend on this; for whether you say 
olkog avrov is the family of God, or of Christ, the same persons are 
designated by the word oixoc, in both cases. 

Oeparwy, according to general usage, differs from dotdoc and oixérne, 
being a more honourable appellation. E. g. the correlate of dovdA0c 
and oixérne is dsordrnc; but Separwy is related to rarijp, Kipioc, or 
Baorkevc. In English, we should call the former a servant, or a slave ; 
the latter, an assistant, an usher, a helper, &c. The Heb. Tly, 
however, means servants of every, or any rank. But mm Ty, ser- 
vant of Jehovah, is always an appellation of honour. In the East, 
courtiers of the highest rank pride themselves in the appellation of 
hing’s servants. The word Segatwy is very happily applied by the 
LXX., and after them in the present case by our author, to Moses; 
who was a servant of Jehovah, in a highly honourable sense. Comp. 
Josh. i. 1, 2. After all, the Separwy is inferior to the zarip or Kioroc 
of a family. Moses, therefore, was inferior to Christ, who was kvptog 
oikov Seov. 

Hic papripwoy rév hudrnSnoopévwy, for testimony to those things 
which were to be declared, i. e. to make disclosures to the Israelites 
of those things which were to be revealed, under the ancient dispen- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 6. 325 


sation, or during the Mosaic period. The meaning is, that Moses was 
a Yeparwy of God, for delivering to the people the ancient oracles. 
Maprvptoy may signify either instruction, or declaration, publication ; 
just as praprupéw signifies, in the New Testament, both docere, enstituere, 
and declarare, notum facere ; as may be seen in the lexicons. AaXn- 
Synoopévwr may also mean, either things to be announced, published, 
or, things to be inculcated, taught. The sense will not be materially 
altered by either method of translation. The meaning will still be, 
simply, that Moses was to be the instrument of delivering to the 
people divine communications, or, he was to teach them in matters of 
religion, 

Ver. 6. Xpwordg Of . . . éopev jypetc, but Christ as a Son, over his 
house, whose house we are, i, e. to whose family we belong, we who 
have made a Christian profession; meaning himself, and those whom 
he addressed. This is as much as to say, ‘‘ We now belong not to the 
house over which Moses was placed; but to that which Christ governs 
or administers.” Adrov, his, 1. e. God’s, our English translators have 
rendered as if written atrov, sc. éavrov, his own; so Beza, Vogel, 
Erasmus, Heinrichs, and others. But Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, 
Griesbach, Knapp, and Tittmann read atrod, as I have translated. 

The writer adds, however, that we really belong to the house which 
Christ governs, éay7ep tiv rappynoiay .. . Kardoxwpev, provided we 
hold fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. appnoia 
means originally, the liberty of speaking boldly, without fear or re- 
straint, and comes etymologically from rapa and fijore. The secondary 
sense is boldness, confidence. Kavynpa primarily means, gloriatio, the 
act of glorying, or, that in which we glory or joy; secondarily, it 
means, joy, glory, &c. I take the phrase as a Hendiadys, ’EXzidoc 
is the subject, and xavynya qualifies it; as is often the case with 
similar constructions, in many parts of the sacred writings; e. g. 
1 .Tim: vil 17. Philem. 6. Rom. vi. 4. Col. 1.5. 2 Cor, iv. 7. Gal. i. 
14; where the genitive (as in the instance before us,) is the prin- 
cipal noun, and the other noun joined with it (whatever case it may 
be in,) serves only in the office of an adjective. More usually, indeed, 
the noun in the genztive serves the office of an adjective, both in 
Hebrew and in Hebrew Greek. But the above cases show, that the 
noun which precedes the genitive, not unfrequently serves the same 
end; and such too is the case in Hebrew, as may be seen in Heb. 
Gram. § 161. 6. 


326 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 7, 8. 


The confidence and joyful hope here mentioned, is that which the 
Christian religion inspires. This must be held SeBaiay, firm, steadfast. 
BeBacay here agrees, in respect to grammatical construction, with 
mappyotay, the remoter noun in the preceding phrase, (as is frequei tly 
the fact in such cases,) but it is related to the whole phrase, in regard 
to its meaning. Lic réXove, to the end, i. e. of life; in other words, ‘* We 
must persevere, to the last, in maintaining our Christian profession; we 
must never abandon the confident and joyful hope which it inspires, if 
we mean tobe considered as belonging to the family of Christ.” 

Ver. 7. Aw, wherefore, i.e. because Christ is superior to Moses, and 
has higher claims upon us, hearken, Christian brethren, to the admo- 
nitions which I give you, in the words with which the Israelites of old 
were warned. 

Kadwe Néyer 70 zvedpa 70 dytoy, 1. e. as the divine word, given by the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, saith: compare Acts 1. 16; xxvui. 25, This 
is one of the various ways of appealing to the scripture, which was usual 
in the time of the apostles; and which is still practised by our churches. 
It involves the idea, that the Holy Scriptures are given by divine inspira- 
tion—are Sedmvevoror. 

Lipepoy, to-day, now, at present, like the Hebrew DIT, to which it 
corresponds. ’Euy rij¢ pwrije atrov axovonre, when or whilst ye hear his 
voice. *Eay, when, like the Hebrew DN, to which it corresponds: com- 
pare John vi. 62; xii. 32; xii. 20; xiv. 3. So Sept. for DN, Prov. 
ii. 24. Isa. xxiv. 13, et alibi. Tie pwvij¢ airov, 1. e. his warning 
voice, his admonition. 

Ver. 8. Mj oxAnpvynre rac Kapdiac thoy. To harden the heart, is to 
make it insensible. In this case, to harden the heart, is to remain insen- 
sible to divine admonition, to neglect it, to act in a contumacious manner. 
The form oxdypivw is of the later Greek. The classical writers used 
oxAnoovy, and this in a physical sense only, not in a moral one. 

Hapartxkpacpm corresponds here to the Hebrew 13, strife, con- 
tention. It is not a classic word; but it is employed by the Septuagint. 
The meaning of it is exacerbation, provocation, embittering, from mxpaivw, 
to be bitter, to embitter. It is here applied to designate the act of the 
Israelites, who provoked the displeasure of God; in particular, to their 
unbelief and murmuring at Massah or Meribah, Exod. xvii. 7, and after- 
wards at other places. 

Kara rijy tépay Tov repacpou év th éphypm, when they tempted [God] 
tn the desert. Kara rijv jypepav, Hebrew DvD (for p23) as in the day 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 9, 10. 327 


that, when, Wempacpod, of temptation, i.e. their unbelief and murmur- 
ing put the patience of God to a trial, (speaking after the manner of 
men.) Iepagw means, to solrert to do evil, but also, to prove, to assay. 
When the scriptures speak of men as tempting God, the meaning is, 
that men do that which puts the divine patience, forbearance, goodness, 
&c. toa trial, i.e. make it difficult, as it were, to preserve a strict 
regard to these. Dindorf is mistaken, when he asserts, on this passage, 
that wepagw is never used by the Greek writers in the sense of enticing 
to sin; for wepay (1. q. meipagew) yvvaica is a very common phrase, in 
the best Greek writers. 

Ver. 9. Ov, when, adverb, i. q. éxov, as GEcumenius remarks. Oi 
marépec tuwy, 1. e. the ancient Israelites. "Eeipaciy pe... eoxipacay 
pe, tried and proved me, i. e. put me to a thorough trial ; the repetition 
of a synonymous word merely denoting intensity. 

Kai eicov, although they saw. So xai in John iil. 32; xiv. 32; 
xvil. 25. Rev. ii. 1, et al. In the same manner the Hebrew }, Gen. 
xviii. 27. Mal. ii. 14, et al. Tecoapdcovra érn is joined (in the Hebrew) 
with the following verse, forty years was I grieved, &c. But this 
depends on the punctuation system of the Masorites, which the apostle 
has not followed. In regard to the sense, it matters not with which 
verb itis joined. If they tempted God forty years, he was grieved 
by their conduct during the same time ; and if he was grieved by them 
for that time, it was because they tempted him. 

Ver. 10. Aid, wherefore, i. e. because they tempted me, &c. This 
word is not in the Hebrew nor Septuagint. The writer has added 
it to the quotation, in order to render the sense of it more impressive 
or explicit. 

HpocwySiax, I was indignant, offended at. The word is Hellen- 
istic. The Greeks use 6ySéw and dy%ifw. According to etymology, 
it consists of wpdc, to, against, upon, and dySn, bank, shore. It is 
applied primarily to a ship infringing upon the shore, or, as we say, 
running aground. It answers to the Hebrew OAp, DN'D PIP, &c. 

Th yeved éxeivy, the men of that age, or, as we say in English, the 
generation then upon the stage. 

’Aei mhavivrat rj kapdig, the corresponding Heb. is, OF} 222 ‘yA oY 
a people of erring heart are they, the word dei having nothing in 
the original which corresponds to it. Still, the sense of the Hebrew 
is tantamount to what the apostle (with the Septuagint) has expressed 
in the Greek. To err in heart may mean, either to err in judgment, 


328 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. [1. 


or in disposition, intention; for the Hebrew 22, ab, and after it the 
Greek xapdia, means, either, animus, judicium, or, mens, cogitatio, 
desiderium. 1 understand xapdéa here, as used according to the 
Hebrew idiom (in which it is often pleonastic, at least it seems so to 
us,) So that the phrase imports simply, They always Me i.e. they are 
continually departing from the right way. 

Abrol o& ovK Eyvwoay jig ddove pov, neither (d€ ovK means, neither 
have they approved my doings. Tuwookw (like the Hebrew BM» 
Ps. i. 6; xxxvi. 11,) means, to approve, to like, to be pleased with, 
Matt. vii. 23. John x. 14, 15. 27. 2 Tim. ii. 19. ‘Odde corresponds to 
the Hebrew 717, which means, counsel, design, purpose, also operation, 
manner of conducting or acting towards any one, In this last sense 
I take the word to be employed here. The meaning is, the Israelites 
had been discontented with the manner in which God had dealt with 
them in the wilderness; they disapproved of his manner of treating 
them. See, for an illustration of this, Deut. vill. 2—5; iv. 32—37; 
and particularly xxix. 2—4. 

Ver. 11. ‘Qe, so that, a conjunction; see Wahl on dc, II. 2. Ev 
TH Opyi pov, in my indignation, viz. that which their unbelief and con- 
tumacy had excited. Compare wapamuoa7ug in ver. 8, which means 
the provocation given by the Israelites. 

Ei ciceXetoovra, they shall not enter. Ei oorrows its negative mean- 
ing from the Hebrew DN, to which it corresponds. The Hebrews used 
DN, in the latter clause of an oath which ran thus: God do so to me, 
1F (DN) J do thus, &c. See the full form in 1 Sam. iii. 17. 2 Sam. 
i. 35. 2 Kings vi. 31. The former part of this oath was sometimes 
omitted, and ON had then the force of a strong negative; see 2 Sam. 
xi. 11. 1 Sam. xiv. 45, alibi; vide Ges. Heb. Lex. under DN, No. 6. 
So in Ps xev. 11, JNA) ON contains a strong negative ; which the Sep- 
tuagint (and our author after them) have rendered ¢i eiseXebaortar. 

The passage exhibits God as speaking after the manner of men, and as 
affected, like them, with feelings of indignation. The idea conveyed by 
such expressions plainly is, that God, as a measure of justice to the 
Israelites for their wickedness, gave solemn assurance that they should 
not enter into his rest. 

Eic ry Kkararavow pov, Hebrew, valag>ia) my rest, means, such rest 
as I enjoy, or such as I have prepared or provided. See more on the 
subject of this rest in the commentary on Chap. IV. 

Ver. 12, Mijrore torat . . . . amoriac, lest there be in any of you an 


COMMENTARY ON HEB, It. 13, 14. 329 


evil and unbelieving heart. ’Aroriac, of unbelief, is here used as an 
adjective to qualify capdia, according to an idiom very common both in 
the Old and New Testament. 

"Ev 79 drrooryvat ard Oeov Cévroe, in apostatizing from the living God ; 
or rather, so that he may apostatize, §&c. "‘Axoorivacis to revolt, to apos- 
tatize, to make defection from. Ocov favroc, living God, either in oppo- 
sition to idols, which had no life, as in Acts xiv. 15. 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. 
iv. 10; or, diving may mean immortal, eternal, as probably it does in 
Heb. ix. 14; x. 31; xii. 22. 1 Pet. i. 23, and often in the Old Testa- 
ment. Thus perennial water is called géy, John iv. 11; vii. 38. So 
the commentators and lexicographers. Perhaps, after all, Zéy in such 
cases may mean, the author, or giver of life: compare John vi. 51, 57; 
ch. vil. 38. 

The sense of the passage taken together is, “¢ Beware, brethren, of an 
unbetieving and evil heart, such as the Israelites possessed, lest, like 
them, you apostatize from the living God,” i. e. lest you apostatize from 
the religion of Christ, which he has required you to receive and to main- 
tain, and thus perish like ancient Israel who revolted from God. 

Ver. 13. "ANAG wapaxaXeire Eavrove, but admonish one another, ‘Eavroi, 
in the New Testament and in the classics, is often used as the equivalent 
of &\AyAoe; and so I understand it here. 

Ka éxdorny hpéepay, every day, i. e. constantly, habitually, "Ayoce ot 
TO ofjtepov KaXeirar, either [catpod] ov, x. 7. X., OF ov may be the adverb of 
time, as in ver. 9. Kadgirat, like the Heb. NO? NP is. See Wahl’s 
Lexicon, and Gesenius. The meaning is, daily, while you have oppor- 
tunity, admonish one another. In 70 ofpepor, the article is joined, (as it 
often is,) with an adverb which expresses the sense of a noun; con- 
structio ad sensum. 

“Iva po) oxXnpuySh ree . . « « prapriac, so that no one may be hard- 
ened by sinful delusion. ’"Amérn rij¢ c&papriac means, the sinful delu- 
sion which false teachers or Judaizing zealots might occasion ; or, that 
delusion into which they might be led, by their oppressive condition 
arising from persecution, or by any allurements of a worldly nature; so 
that they would become insensible to the warnings which they had 
received, and might abandon their Christian profession. This would be 
a delusion indeed, and be highly sinful. Mutual daily admonition, the 
apostle intimates, would tend to prevent this evil. 

Ver. 14. Méroyou yap rov Xpisrov yeydvapev, we are, or we shall be, 
partakers of the blessings which Christ bestows. That Xpiorde is some- 


330 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ill. 15, 16. 


times put for the Christian religion, and sometimes for the blessings which 
are proffered by it, may be seen in the lexicons. 

"Edyrep Tiv apyyv. . . . KaTaoxwper, if we hold fast, unto the end, 
our former confidence. Try apxny tijc iroordcewe, 1. . THY TOWTHY TioTYY, 
1 Tim. v. 12. The sentiment is, Continue, to the end of life, to exercise 
confidence in Christ, and you shall obtain the reward which he has pro- 
mised ; see péxpe rédove, in ver. 6, above. 

Ver. 15. "Ev 7@ déyoeSac in respect to what is said, or, in regard to 
the declaration, viz. the declaration which follows, or the quotation of 
what had before been cited. ’Evy rH MNyeoSar is equivalent to éy rp héyery, 
ch. viii. 13, or to kara 70 Neyduevor. The design of this expression is, 
merely to remind the reader of what had just been cited from the Old 
Testament, a part only of which is now repeated, and the rest is left to 
be supplied by the reader’s recollection. 

Sijpepov tay, k. tT. XN. now, while (see ety, ver. 7,) you hear his 
voice, &C. 

Ver. 16. Tivec yap akotoavtec maperixpavay ; so, with Greisbach, 
Knapp, Tittmann, and others, I prefer to accent and punctuate this 
clause. The common editions have rivéc, (accented on the ultimate,) 
and meaning some, instead of rivec, the imterrogative, meaning who? 
They also omit the interrogation point after rapexikpaway. According 
to this last mode of exhibiting the text, it must be rendered, (as in our 
English version,) For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeitt, 
not all that came out of Egypt by Moses; which is altogether inappo- 
site to the design of the apostle. The true rendering I take to be, Who 
now were they, that when they heard did provoke [the Lord?] Or, 
Who, let me ask, (see on yap, Wahl, no. 1, b. 6.) were they, &c. The 
design of this and the following questions is, to lead the minds of the 
readers to consider the specific sin, viz. unbelief, which occasioned 
the ruin of the ancient Israelites, and which would involve their posterity 
in the like condemnation. 

"ANN ob wdyrec....Mwicéwe, rather, were they not all who came out 
of Egypt by Moses? ’Ada, rather, or, nay. The same form occurs in 
Luke xvii. 8: ‘“* Who of you, having a servant ploughing, or tending 
sheep, will say to him when he returns from the field, Come and sit down 
immediately at the table? Well he not rather say, or, nay, will he nat 
say, to him, (ad ovyi épet airp,) prepare my supper?” &c. The force 
of adda, in our text, it is not difficult to perceive. The writer first asks, 
“¢ Who now were those, that when they had heard divine warnings still 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 17. Sal 


provoked the Lord?’ He then, as though the question in this form were 
almost superfluous, immediately adds, “‘ Might I not rather ask, or, 
nay, might I not ask, Did not all who came out of Egypt do this?” He 
means to intimate by this, that the number who embrace error cannot 
sanction it; nor can unanimity in unbelief render it any more excusable. 
Consequently, that the great body of the Jews rejected the Messiah at 
the time then present, and urged the Christian converts to do the same, 
would be no excuse for apostasy. Tldyzee is not to be taken in the strict 
metaphysical or mathematical sense here, any more than in multitudes 
of other places; e.g. ‘* Ald Judea went out to John to be baptized, con- 
fessing their sins,” Matt. iii. 5, 6; ‘‘ all men came to Jesus to be baptized 
of him,” John iii. 26; and so often. Of the adults, only Caleb and 
Joshua among the Israelites are excepted, as not having taken part in 
the murmurings against the Lord, Numb. xiv. 30. Of course, there 
could be no scruples in the apostle’s mind about applying the word 
mévrec in this case, just as it is applied in a multitude of others, viz. to 
designate great multitudes, or the great majority. 

Ava Mwicewc, by Moses, means under his guidance, by his instru- 
mentality. 

Ver. 17. Tiordé....érn, and with whom was he indignant for forty 
years? Above, in the quotation, ver. 10, forty years is connected with 
elov ru épya jlov. But the sense of the whole passage is not materially 
changed, by the manner of expression in ver. 17. It is true, that the 
Israelites saw the works of the Lord for forty years, and that he expressed 
his indignation against them during that time, until the generation who 
had rebelled were destroyed. 

Oixt rote a&paprhcacr; was it not with those who had sinned ? 
Ernesti and Dindorf labour to show, that dpaprdyw means the same 
here as dwecSéw. Doubtless, it includes the sin of unbelief; but it is 
of itself more generic than dzecSéw, and includes various sins of the 
Israelites, such as rebellion, murmurings, &c. the consequence of 
unbelief, 

Ta coda, lit. members, such as arms, legs. It is here put, however, 
by synecdoche, for the whole body, and corresponds to the Hebrew 0°33, 
corpses, in Numb. xiv. 29, 32; to which passages the apostle here refers. 
“Exece in Greek, and the corresponding Hebrew 2D) are both used to 
designate the prostrate condition of dead bodies, or the falling down 
dead. The whole phrase may be thus paraphrased, ‘‘ Who perished in 
the desert.” 


332 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 18, 19. 


Ver. 18. Tiare d& Gpoce....KaTatavow abrov; to whom did he swear, 
(see Numb. xiv. 23. 28—30. Deut. 1. 34, 35,) that they should not 
enter into his rest, except to those who disbelieved ? 

In Numb. iv. 23. 28—30, is an account of an vath, on the part of 
Jehovah, that the rebellious Israelites should not enter into the land, 
which he had sworn to their fathers should be given to them, i. e. in case 
they were obedient. In Deut. i, 34, 35, there is another mention of a 
like oath, viz, that they should not enter into the goodly land, pledged 
by oath to their fathers. But in neither case is the word rest employed. 
The reasoning of the apostle, however, in the chapter before us, would 
lead us to suppose, that the manner in which the unbelieving Jews were 
declared, in the above passages, to be excluded from the goodly land, and 
the reasons stated for that exclusion, necessarily implied exclusion from 
the heavenly Canaan also, or, from the rest of God. 

Ver. 19. Kat Sdéropev....0i axisiay, we see, then, that they could 
not enter in, because of unbelief. Kai, then, in the apodosis of a sen- 
tence, or in a connected series of reasoning, as here. See Wahl on 
cal, 11, 2; and compare Gesen. Heb. Lex. on }, No. 5. 





The writer having thus appealed, for the sake of warning, to the example and con- 
sequences of unbelief among the Israelites of old in the wilderness, proceeds now 
further to confirm the application of what he had been saying to those whom he 
addressed, and to remove objections which might be raised against this application. 
Two objections, he seems to apprehend, might probably be raised against the use 
which he had made of the citation from the Old Testament: the one, that the rest there 
spoken of meant only, a rest in the land of Canaan, or, the quiet possession of the 
promised earthly inheritance ; the other, that the ancient Israelites were excluded from 
the promised rest, on account of murmuring and rebellion, crimes not charged upon 
those whom the apostle addressed. The writer has deemed it expedient, and it was 
proper, that both of these objections to the use which he had made of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures should be removed, before he proceeded further with his main design. 

In chap. iv. 1, he brings forward the assertion, that the promise of entering into the 
rest of God still remains, addressed to the Hebrew Christians, as it was to the Israelites 
of old. In ver. 2, he proceeds to repeat the idea, (for the sake of deeply impressing 
it,) that blessings are announced to us (to Christians) in like manner as to the ancient 
Hebrews ; and he now adds, that they failed to obtain the proffered blessings through 
unbelief. These declarations involve two propositions ; the first, that the blessings in 
question must be of a spiritual nature; the second, that unbelief is the great cause 
of that sin which excludes from the enjoyment of them. The last of these propositions 
he does not formally labour to establish, as he does the other: because the evidence 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 333 


of it is involved in the quotation which he had made in ch. ii. 7—11; for it is 
there affirmed, that after all which the Israelites had seen of the works of God for 
forty years in the desert, they still tempted and provoked him, i. e. they gave no 
credit to all the testimonies which he had set before them of his fidelity toward his 
promises, and of his love and pity for them; nor did they believe his commina- 
tions against the disobedient. Consequently, they were excluded, by this unbelief, 
from his rest. 

But what is the rest in question? Is it quiet possession of the land of Canaan ? 
No, says the apostle. Believers now enter into the rest (ver. 3,) i. e. the same 
kind of rest as was anciently proffered. Moreover, God calls it cardravaly pov, 
my rest, i. e. (adds he) such rest as God enjoyed, after he had completed the cre- 
ation of the world ; consequently spiritual, heavenly rest. This is plain, (as he goes 
on to show in ver. 4,) from what the Scripture says, Gen. ii. 2, concerning the rest 
of God. Again, it is involved in the very form of expression, in Ps. xcv. 11, viz. 
MY rest, ver. 5. 

“‘ Now,” continues he, (ver. 6,) ‘¢as some must enter into the rest in question,” 
(for surely God would not provide and proffer a rest altogether in vain; ‘and since 
they, to whom it was offered, lost it through wnbedief/—[it follows that believers only 
can attain to it.”] But this last idea, the author has not expressed. He has left the 
reader to supply it; as he may do without any difficulty, from what the writer had 
already said in ver. 2, 3. The illustration and confirmation of this truth, is plainly 
one of the objects which the writer has in view (as was stated above :) and while ver. 
3—5 show that the rest spoken of is of a heavenly nature ; the object of ver. 6. is, 
to intimate that unbelief was the sin which excluded from it. 

But lest there might be some doubt about the nature of the rest to which the 
ancient Scriptures refer, the writer resumes the argument respecting the nature of it, 
and adduces other considerations, to show that it must be spiritual and heavenly. 

“ Moreover,” says he, (ver. 7,) “ David himself, (who lived nearly five centuries 
after the land of promise had been occupied by the Israelites) —David speaks of a 
definite time, then present, in which he warns his cotemporaries against losing the 
rest which God had promised to the believing and obedient; (a rest of the same 
nature as that from which the Israelites of old had been excluded, as may be seen 
in Ps. xev.)” Now,” (adds he,) “If Joshua, who gave Israel possession of the 
jand of Canaan, had given them the res¢ to which the scripture refers when it speaks 
of God's rest, then the Psalmist could not have spoken, so many centuries afterwards, 
of a rest that was still proffered to Israel, and from which the unbelieving would be 
excluded, ver, 9.” ‘Hence,’ he concludes, ‘it is evident, since the rest which is 
spoken of is not of a temporal nature, but of a spiritual enduring nature, that there 
remains a rest for the pegple of God, i. e. believers.” 

That the main object of the writer, in chap. iv. 1—9, is to prove the spiritual 
and abiding nature of the proffered rest, is stated so explicitly in ver, 10, that there 
can be no reasonable doubt left in respect to his intention; ‘ For,” says he, “ he 
who enters into his [God’s] rest, rests from his own labours, as God did from his.” 


334 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 


That is, he who attains to the rest proffered to Israel in the time of David, and to 
the more ancient Israelites in the wilderness, attains to a rest like that of God 
(described in Gen. ii. 2;) i.e. he will rest from the toils, and trials, and sorrows 
of a probationary state, and enjoy a happiness heavenly and divine ina better world 
above. 

The writer then proceeds, in his usual manner, to close the topic by adding 
exhortations diligently to seek the rest in question, and awful warnings against incur- 
ring, by unbelief, the righteous indignation of that holy and omnipotent Judge, unto 
whom their account must be rendered, ver. 11—13. 

In regard to the views of our author, relative to the subject of the vest which 
is proffered in the Old Testament to all who are believing and obedient, they, 
doubtless, differ very much from many commentators and critics of the present day, 
who are distinguished for their literary attainments. But it will not follow from 
this, that they are erroneous. Certain it is, that all the writers of the New Testament 
had similar views, respecting the spiritual nature of some of the promises contained 
in the Jewish Scriptures. I cannot, therefore, regard the passage which we have 
just considered, asa mere accommodation (a somewhat forced one too) of promises 
and threatenings addressed to Israel of old, that had respect only to the land of 
Canaan; nor as a mere fanciful application of things ancient, to the Ilebrews whom 
our author is addressing. I cannot help believing, at all events, that he regarded 
the rest spoken of in Ps. xcv. 11, and Gen. il. 2, as spiritual and heavenly rest. 
Consequently, an appeal to the examples contained in the Old Testament, is more 
to the point, and more forcible, when thus understood, than it would be in any other 
mode of explaining the views and design of the writer. 

As to the mode of reasoning, in order to establish the positions which the writer 
has in view, it is quite different, indeed, from that to which we now resort, who have 
the whole of the New Testament in our hands, in which “life and immortality are 
brought [so fully] to light.” We need to take but very little pains, in order to prove 
that promises of rest in a future world, promises respecting a spiritual and heavenly 
country, are made to Christians. But we must remember, while we are labouring 
to understand the reasoning of Paul in the chapter before us, that the Hebrews whom 
he addressed had no New Testament; for some of it was not yet written, and none 
of it had acquired a general circulation among the Christian churches. This is the 
reason why Paul, in all his epistles, whenever he has occasion to quote scripture, 
uniformly quotes the Old Testament only. How could he appeal to the New Tes- 
tament, which was, when he wrote our epistle, only in a forming state, and was not 
completed until after his death? Indeed, it was not embodied in its present form, 
and generally circulated among the Christian churches, until nearly a century after the 
death of Paul. : 

This may suffice to show why Paul appeals to the Old Testament, and not to the 
New, when he designs to establish any thing from the sacred oracles. Every one, 
moreover, who believes with Paul that the “ gospel has brought life and immortality 
to light,” will of course suppose it to be more difficult, to establish promises of rest 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 335 


sz a future world from the Old Testament than from the New. Ifence, he may bz 
less forcibly struck with the argument of Paul, in Heb. iv. to prove a promise of 
future happiness to believers, than he will with many an argument which his own 
mind will supply from the New Testament. And with good reason, The New Tes- 
tament does afford arguments far more explicit and convincing than the Old; and of 
course more powerful arguments than those which Paul deduces, in our chapter, from 
the Old. But this is no fault in the writer of our epistle. It is merely a result of the 
circumstances in which he, and those whom he addressed, were placed. He had 
asserted, in writing to them, that a promise of the same nature was proffered to Chris- 
tians, as was proffered to the ancient Israelites, ch. iv. 1, 2. The consequence he 
deduces from this is, that as unbelief with respect to this promise occasioned their ruin, 
so the like unbelief would now produce the like consequences. Nothing could be 
better adapted to his purpose, when writing to the Hebrews, than to produce an 
example of the consequences of unbelief, that was taken from their own progenitors, 
and recorded in their own Scriptures, which they acknowledged as the word of God. 
To the New Testament he could not appeal, for it was not then in their hands. To 
the Old Testament Scriptures, then, he chooses (and for the best of reasons) to make 
the appeal, in establishing the assertion he had made, that a promise of entering into 
the rest of God was still left; that the proffered blessing was announced to Christians in 
the same manner as to God’s ancient people, ch. iv. 1, 2; and that it would be con- 
ferred only on those who remained firm in their belief. 

The whole argument is, indeed, in some sense, argumentum ad hominem. It is 
appropriate to the time, to the circumstances in which the apostle wrote, and to the 
people whom he addressed. But who can, with any propriety, make it a matter of 
accusation against the writer, that he consulted the good of those whom he addressed, 
by arguing with them in a manner that was most appropriate to their condition? 
Did not their Saviour constantly do the same? And ought we not to follow his 
example? 

It is indeed true, that the views of the apostle, in respect to what is revealed in the 
Old Testament with regard to a future state, were plainly very different from those of 
many commentators and critics, who represent the Jews, God’s chosen people, and 
favoured with the light of revelation, as more profoundly ignorant of the doctrine of 
immortality, and of future rewards and punishments, than any of their heathen neigh- 
bours ; a thing as improbable in itself, as it is contrary to the reasoning of the apostle, 
on which I have been commenting. Nor is it at all necessary to maintain, with most 
of the recent commentators, that Paul adlegorizes the rest of Canaan here, in.such a 
way as to accommodate himself to the spirit of the age in which he lived, and the taste 
of the Jews who were his cotemporaries. So far am I from embracing this view of 
the subject, that I am quite persuaded, he has designedly undertaken to show, that the 
interpretation his cotemporaries put upon the passage which respects erclusion from 
the rest of God, was an erroneous one. Plainly he labours to show, that rest in the 
land of Canaan could NOT possibly have been meant by the Psalmist, Where then 
is the allegorizing of the apostle here, of which so much has been said? Who can 


336 COMMENTARY ON HEB. lv. |. 


say confidently, against the reasoning and the decision of Paul, that the rest of which 
David spake, was not spiritual? I content myself, whatever others may do, with the 
exevesis of the apostle; and do fully believe that he is in the right. 

If he is correct in his views, then it follows, that the future punishment of the un- 
believing Israelites is clearly intimated, by the exclusion from spiritual, or heavenly 
rest which is threatened. This is a necessary inference from the reasoning and con- 


clusions of the apostle. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. SwBnSépev, let us beware, lit. let us be afraid of. As fear, 
however, in its /iteral sense, is not applicable in this case, the exact 
shade of meaning is, caveamus, let us beware. 

Karakerropévyc érayyediac, a promise being still left. Karadetrw, 
according to both sacred and classic usage, may mean, to forsake, 
desert, neglect ; e. g. in Acts vi. 2. 2 Pet. ii. 15, et al. In this sense 
many critics have understood it, in the passage now in question. ‘The 
sense then would be, ‘‘ Let us beware, lest by neglect of the promise 
made to us,” &c. But I much prefer the other sense of the word, i. e. 
to leave behind, and (passively) to be left behind, to remain, to be still 
extant; e. g. in Acts xxiv. 27. Luke xx. 31. Mark xii. 19, al. and espe- 
cially comp. ver. 9, below. The meaning then is, that the promise, 
which was implicitly made to believers among the ancient people of God, 
is still in being, and is made to us, i. e. to Christians. This the next 
verse so directly asserts, as to render the interpretation just given nearly 
certain. 

’"Erayyediac declaration, annunciation, promise, i. e. annunciation 
of the reward offered to the believing, or faithful. 

Mijrore . . . « Ooxh tee && tyiy torepncéva, lest . . . . any one of 
you may fail of obtaining it. By sacred and classical usage, doxéw is 
frequently joined witi other verbs, without making any essential addition 
to the sense of them; i.e. it is said to be used pleonastically ; by which, 
however, can be meant only, that it is incapable of being precisely ren- 
dered into our own language, and apparently adds nothing to the sense 
ofa phrase. But this is not exactly true of cocéw. In many cases, it is 
plainly designed to soften the expression to which it is attached; e. g. 
1 Cor. vii. 40, Paul says, doc dé x¢yw rreipa Oeov Exew, I seem to 
myself to possess the Spirit of God ; a modest way of asserting the fact, 
instead of speaking categorically. In a similar way doxéw is employed, 
in 1 Cor. xiv. 37; x. 12, 6 dox@yv Ecravar, he who seems to himself to 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 2. 337 


stand; ch. ii. 18; iv. 9. In a few cases, it is difficult to distinguish 
what addition is made to the phrase, by the use of doxéw: e. g. Luke 
Xxll. 24, ric abrov Ooxet elvae peilwy, i. q. ric cin. So Luke viii. 18, 
0 doxet Exe is expressed, in Luke xix. 25, by 6 Zyee. 1 Cor. xi. 16, ei 
cé rec OoKet piddvecog eivac. There can scarcely be a doubt, however, 
that in all cases, the Greeks designed to give some colouring to a sen- 
tence, by employing it. It would often seem to be something near to 
our may, might, can, could, &c. when used to soften forms of expres- 
sion that might have been categorical. So Theophylact understood it, 
in our phrase. The words doxet rie bsepncévac, he thus explains : rov- 
Tést, pnrwe bsepian, lest he may come short—and fail to enter into the 
promised rest. The writer uses a mild and gentle address, not say- 
ing uy bsepfjon, but joj doxh brepykevac. Theophylact in loc.” This, 
I apprehend, is hitting the exact force of the phrase here; an imper- 
fect view of which is given in the lexicons. 

°Eé buey, in some manuscripts and fathers, fdr; which would better 
accord with the usual xoivwotc of the writer; e.g.ch.i.1; ii. 1,3; 
ni. 1.6.19. al. But it is not an unusual thing for Paul to change or 
intermingle different persons, in the same passage; e. g. Rom. xiy. 13. 
Heb. x. 24, 25, 

"Yorepéw lit. means, to come afterwards, to come late. In the 
secondary sense it means, to fail, to come short of ; as he must fail of 
obtaining a thing, who comes too late for it. If the exhortation here 
be regarded as having a special reference to the time (oyepov) when 
the offers of rest are made, piyrore . . . borepnxévae may be rendered 
happily, as in Wahl, lest . . . ye come too late, i.e. after ofepor. 
But I prefer the more simple method; lest . . . ye fail of obtaining 
the promised blessing. 

Ver. 2. Kal yao éopev evayyedopévor, for to us also are blessings 
announced, or, we are evangelized, i. e. the promise of blessings is 
declared or made known to us, as well as to them. Evayyedifw is 
used classically in the same sense, i. e. to announce joyful tidings, to 
proclaim proffered good. The proffered blessing, implied in the text, 
is the rest of which the writer had been speaking, and of which he con- 
tinues to speak. 

"ANN’ ov« MpeAyae 6 NOyoe Tijg axonc, the promise or declaration which 
they heard, {or which was proclaimed,| was of no benefit to them. 
‘O Abyoe Tijg akoye May be equivalent to 6 dxovaeic Adyoc. i. e. the 
word heard by them; or it may be like the Hebrew mpyow 37 


a 


338 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 2. 


word of annunciation or report, i. e. word announced or reported. 
The sense is not materially changed, whichever of these interpretations 
is adopted. 

Lvykexpapévog . . . axovcacr, not beiny joined with faith in them 
that heard it, or, not being united to faith, i. e. faith not accom- 
panying it, or associating with it. Zvyxexpapévoc is explained, by many 
commentators, as being tropically employed here; and the metaphor, 
they allege, is taken from food, which, when digested, unites with the 
corporeal system, and becomes aliment to it. So here, the word, if 
duly received, would have incorporated itself, so to speak, with the 
internal, spiritual man; but as it was not received, it did not so in- 
corporate itself. But this is not so simple and easy a mode of explana- 
tion, as that given in the above translation. 

Many manuscripts and editions read ovyxexpapévove and some ovy- 
kekepaopevouc ; which some critics and interpreters prefer. But it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to make any tolerable sense of these read- 
ings. The common one is much preferable. 

Tote a&xovoac. —equivalent here to the genitive r@v dxovcdy7wy. The 
meaning is, that the Advyoc was not associated with the faith of those 
who heard it. The Hebrews usually designate possession, by the 
dative with 5; e.g. the Song of songs, mow) IWR which is Solo- 
mon’s. So, frequently, in Greek; e. g. of nario his father, Pind. 
Olymp. i. 91. Neither do thy children [oot réxva] see the light, 
Eurip. Pheeniss. 1563. Men are one xrnparwy roic Oeotc, of the pos- 
sessions of the gods, Plato, Phed. See Matt. Gr. Gram. § 392. ¢. 1. 
et seq. In all such cases, there is an ellipsis of a pronoun relating to 
the object possessed, and of the verb of existence, which governs the 
dative when it signifies possession or property; e. g. krnparwy [a& ésc] 
Toic Devote. 

The sense of the whole verse is simply this; ‘a promise of rest is 
made to Christians now, as well as to God’s ancient people. But 
they received no advantage from it, because of unbelief ;” the implica- 
tion is gofnfopev, (as he had just said,) ju} ree Coxh, x. 7. dX, that is, guard 
well, then, against unbelief. 

Ver. 3. Eicepyopefa yap .. . misevoavrec, but we who believe do 
enter into the rest, viz. God’s rest. Tap, but; for plainly eicepyops0a 
yap is put in distinction from the preceding a\X’ ovK wpeAnce, to which 
the writer subjoins, but (yap) we who do belicve, are profited by «, 
&c. It may also be rendered, nearly to the same purpose, séil, or, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. lv. 3. S39 


yet (yap,) we who do believe, §c. provided the preceding add’ be traris- 
lated, although. The sentiment of the two clauses is either this; “ Be 
it that the unbelievers reaped no advantage from the rest proffered to 
them, yet we who are believers do enter into that rest ;” which the writer 
then proceeds to prove: or it may be stated in another form, thus, “« An 
offer of rest is made to us, as well as to them; but (&dd’) unbelief 
excluded them from that rest; we, then (yap,) who believe shall be 
admitted to it.” That is, if our character be the opposite of theirs, then 
will our lot be the opposite also. 

Eicspyépuefa in the present tense, appears to have created difficulty in 
the minds of some critics, who have changed it into eiceXevodpeOa (future 
tense.) But how needless this change is, every one conversant with the 
idiom of the bible may easily judge; in which the present tense is very 
often used as a universal tense, embracing time past, present, and future. 
In Hebrew, it is very common to use the present participle, for the same 
purposes as the Latins use their future in rus. 

Kaduc cipnxey’, x. r. X. that is, a solemn asseveration that unbelievers 
should not enter into his rest, implies, of course, that believers should 
enter into it. See on ch. iii. 11. 

Kairo: tov tpywy . . . . yevnSévrwy, namely [rest from] the works 
that were done after the world was founded. Kairor is a particle, the 
meaning of which has been much controverted here. There is no doubt, 
that it sometimes has the meaning of although, which our English version 
has here given to it. But I am unable to make any sense of the pas- 
sage, under consideration, if caéroc be thus translated. Nor does xafroc 
seem originally to mean, although. Its principal signification is, e¢ 
quidem, et sane. So Xenophon (Cyrop. III.,) xaéroc, etre éxeivoue peéy 
goPepwrépove rovjoopev, kK. tr. X. and truly, if we shall make them some- 
what more timid, §c. Thucyd. IV. 60, xairor, ywdvae xp), K. tA. and 
truly, we ought to know. Aristoph. Plut. 1179, xairoe rore, drt eiyor 
ovcév, and indeed then, when they possessed nothing. ‘* Adhibetur,”’ 
says Hoogeveen, ‘‘ cum sequitur aliquid nova attentione dignum;”’ and 
again, ‘‘ Quartus usus est, st dictum exemplo confirmatur,” (Hoogey. 
Doctrina Part. Grec. ed Schiitz. vocab. cairor;) which is the very case 
in question. For here the writer gives the example of God's rest after 
the creation, in order to explain what is the meaning of My rest. I have 
given the sense, by rendering xaivor, namely, which is equivalent in mapy 
cases to et quidem et sane. So Devarius (de Partic. Ling. Grec.) 


explains cairo: ; and after him Carpzoff, (Comm. in loc. nostrum.) The 
%2 


340 COMMENTARY ON HEB. iV. 4. 


latter says, ‘“‘ Devarius evicit, eam (kairoc) simpliciter ad exponendam 
aliquam sententiam poni.” The sense will be substantially the same, if 
kairot be rendered, and truly, and indeed ; but the other mode of trans- 
lating is more explicit, and makes the connexion more facile. 

Tév tpywy [rest from] the works. That xaradzavow is to be under- 
stood, before épxwy is clear from ver. 4 and 10, where the same sentiment 
is repeated. The ellipsis may be either [kardravow] r@v tpywy, or, 
[kardravow axd| 7H Epywy; more probably the latter, for azo is sup- 
plied after the verb careravoe, both in ver. 4 and 10. ’Azo, however, Is 
not absolutely necessary here, as nothing is more common than the geni- 
tive case, without any preposition, to mean zn respect to, in regard to; 
e. g. éyyvrara air@ cise yevouc, I am very nearly allied to him, IN 
REGARD TO descent ; dzaic appévwy watdwy, childless IN REGARD TO 
males ; see Buttman’s Gram. § 119. 6.1. Matthie, § 315. 

"Aro karafoXije Kiopouv yevnDevrwy, done, i. e. completed or performed, 
when the world was founded. "Amo xara odjgje, at or after the founda- 
tion, 1. e. beginning ; in a sense, like azo dpyijc, at first, in Matt. xix. 
4; and in Luke xii. 25, ag’ ob means when. Josephus uses cara/3od7 
for beginning ; e. g. Lib. 11. 17, Bell. Jud. he says, «‘ This was cara(3ody 


? 


moAépou, the beginning of the war,” viz. with the Romans. 

By rendering azo, after, I follow the more usual sense of the word. 
The nature of the image I take to be this. The fouwndution (xara(oX}) 
of a building is merely its commencement, a state or condition prepara- 
tory to the completion of the superstructure. So here, the kara/od) 
founding of the earth, was the act described in Gen. i. 1. The comple- 
tion of the building (so to speak) followed, during the work of the six 
days which succeeded. These were the tpywy yeveSévrwy which our 
author mentions here, and these were the works from which God rested, 
after they were completed. That ard, joined with nouns designating 
time, may mean after, since, every lexicon will show. 

Ver. 4. The writer now proceeds to cite a passage of scripture, in 
order to show that God did enjoy such a rest as he had spoken of. 
Kipnce yap, for [the scripture] says, or, [the Holy Ghost] says; the 
usual mode of appealing to the Old Testament. 

Ilov in a certain piace or passage. Chapter and verse are no where 
cited in the New Testament; and very rarely is any particular book 
named, unless, indeed, it bears the same name as its author. An appeal to 
Scripture, by merely saying rov, shows that the writer must have sup- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 5, 6. 341 


posed his readers to be familiar with the contents of the Jewish Scrip- 
tures. The passage cited may be found in Gen. ii. 2. 2 

Karéravaev 6 Ocdc. The rest here spoken of, is of course to be con-- 
sidered as described ay3pwroraSéc, i. e. in accommodation to the capa- 
cities of men. It surely does not imply, that God was wearied by his 
work of creation ; but that he simply ceased from it, and enjoyed a holy 
and delightful quiet, in the pleasing contemplation of the works which 
had been accomplished. Compare Gen. i. 4. 10. 18. 25. 31. 

Ver. 5. Such, then, was the rest of God, of which the scripture 
speaks. To such rest, the apostle says, the writer of the ninety-fifth 
Psalm refers. Kai év rovrw radu, again in this passage also, viz. in the 
passage which he had already quoted from Ps. xcv. 11, i. e. the passage 
which he is now going to mention, the Scripture represents God as say- 
ing, MY rest, i. e. such rest as I have, or, suchas I enjoy. In other 
words, both Gen. ii. 2, and Ps. xev. 11, speak of a holy, spiritual rest, 
since they speak of a rest which God himself enjoys. 

Ver. 6. ’Evel otv aroNeimerae .... Ol ameiSeray, since then it remains, 
that some must enter into that [rest], and [since] they to whom the pro- 
mise was formerly announced, did not enter in, because of unbelief ; [it 
follows that believers only can enter in], compare ver. 3 ; or, [it follows, 
that a rest remains for believers], compare ver. 9. 

This seems to be a continuation of the subject in ver. 3. There the 
writer says, ‘‘ Believers enter into the rest of God.” How is this 
proved? <‘* Because he has sworn, that uxbelievers shall not enter into 
it; which necessarily implies that believers shall enter into it. Then, 
after delaying a moment, in order to show what the nature of the rest in 
question is, viz. that it is God’s rest, i. e. such rest as God enjoyed after 
the work of creation was completed, (ver. 3—5,) the author resumes the 
consideration of the proposition advanced in the first part of ver. 3, and 
avers, that, as some must enter God’s rest, (for God eould not be sup- 
posed to have provided one in vain ;) and as unbelievers cannot enter 
in; so it is necessarily implied, that bedéevers, and they only, will enjoy 
the rest in question. See the illustration of the reasoning prefixed to 
ch. iv. in the preceding pages. 

Others construe the verse in this manner: ‘“ Since, then, some must 
enter into his rest, and unbelievers of former days did not enter in; 
therefore he defines again (ra\w) a particular day,” &c. constructing 
ver. 6 and 7 as one connected sentence. But this makes the sentence 


342 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 7, 8. 


very much involved, and obscures ‘the design of the writer. His object 
certainly is, to show that the rest proffered in ancient times, in the 
ninety-fifth Psalm, still remains for the people of God ; see ver. 9, 10. 
But how can this be proved by merely showing that David speaks of a 
definite time, when he wrote the ninety-fifth Psalm, in which the offer of 
rest was then made? On the other hand, I understand it to be the par- 
ticular object of the writer, in ver. 7, seq. to exhibit further proof, that 
the proffered rest is of a spiritual nature, and therefore not to be limited 
by assigning to it a merely temporal sense. See the preceding illustra- 
tion, referred to above. 

Ver. 7. Hadi reve dpiZer ypepay .... Kapdiac tpar, again he specifies 
a particular day, TO-DAY, when speaking by David, so long a time 
afterwards ; as it is said, ‘* To-day, whilst ye hear his voice, harden 
not your hearts.’ See above, on ch. iii. 7, 8, particularly ver. 18. 
The reasoning stands thus: ‘‘ In David’s time, nearly five hundred years 
after unbelievers in the wilderness were threatened with exclusion from 
the promised inheritance, the Psalmist makes use of the commination 
which has been quoted, in order to deter those whom he addressed, from 
hardening their hearts as the ancient Israelites did, and so losing the rest 
as they did, which God had proffered to the obedient and believing.” 
This rest, then, could’ not be merely the land of Canaan, (as the Jews 
of Paul’s time understood it to be,) for this both believers and unbe- 
lievers, living in the time of the Psalmist, already enjoyed. Consequently, 
the rest spoken of by the Psalmist was of a spiritual nature, pertaining 
only to believers. All this is plainly implied in— 

Ver. 8. Ei yap airove Inoovc .... tépac, now, zf Joshua had given 
them rest, i. e. the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks, then he 
[David] would not have spoken of another time, viz. when rest was to 
be given, or to be obtained. That is, ‘If the rest of God be only the 
rest of Israel in Canaan, or the quiet possession of the promised land, 
then the Psalmist could not have spoken of it as still proffered, in his 
time, after it had been in fact given to Israel by Joshua, nearly five cen- 
turies before. The other time, here spoken of, is the same which is 
designated by the word onpepoy in the quotation ; which implies a time 
different from that, and subsequent to that, in which the Israelites 
obtained the rest of Canaan. 

That ‘Incovc means Joshua here, there can be no doubt; for the 
object of the writer is to prove, that Jesus does hestow. the rest spoken 
of, viz. that which the ‘Iyaotvc here named did not bestow. Karéravce, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 9, 10. 343 


caused to rest, exactly as the Hiphil conj. in Hebrew is used; e. g. 
MT (from f7)})in Deut xii. 10, in the same sense as xaréxavce here. 

Ver. 9. "Apa arodeimerae . . . TOU OEod, consequently, there remain- 
eth a rest for the people of God, i.e. for believers see ver. 3. Here 
the object of the preceding argument is plainly developed; so plainly, 
that we are not left at liberty to doubt concerning it. Here is fully 
expressed, what is plainly ¢mplied in ver. 6, although in an elliptical 
manner, as has been already noticed. Such a manner is not unfre- 
quent with Paul. Compare Rom. v. 12 with vy. 18, 19. See Intr 
§ 22. 3. 

LaPPariopoc, (Heb. NAV, PNAW rest, sabbatism,) holy, religious, 
spiritual rest. XaPParropog is a mere Hebrew word with a Greek 
ending; and it is here employed as equivalent to cardravorc, but with 
special reference to the Hebrew expression MAW (from NAW) in Gen. 
ii. 2, which there describes the rest of God. The Hebrew WAY is a 
kind of intensive noun, formed from NIW, and means, sabbath by way 
of eminence. aPPariopoc, which stands for PNAW, seems to be a 
word coined by the writer purposely for the occasion, and is very ap- 
propriate to his design. 

That believers do enter into the rest of God, i. e. a rest like his, is 
further shewn by— 

Ver. 10.’O yap eicehMOwy . . . 6 Oedc, he who enters into his [God’s] 
rest, he will also cease from his own labours, as God did from his. 
As God ceased from his work on the seventh day, and enjoyed holy 
delight in the contemplation of what he had done, (see on ver. 4. 
above,) so the believer, in a future world, will cease from all his toils 
and sufferings here, and look back with holy delight on the struggles 
through which he has past and the labours which he has performed, 
for the sake of the Christian cause. Or, as God enjoys a most pure 
and perfect rest or happiness in heaven; so the believer will enjoy a 
similar happiness there. 

There surely is no more difficulty in calling that rest, which is pro- 
mised to believers, the rest of God, than there is in saying, that man 
‘«* was formed in his image ;” that Christians “are made partakers of 
the divine nature;” or that ‘‘we shall be like him, when we shall 
see him as he is.” The rest of God, is rest like that which God 
enjoys. And it deserves to be noticed, that the writer, in order to 
illustrate the nature of this rest, has chosen the description of it, as 
following the work of creation, in order to make a comparison between 


344 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Iv. I1, 12. 


it and that rest which believers will have, when all their toils and 
sufferings are ended. This was well adapted to take hold of the minds 
of those to whom he was writing, and who were exposed to many hard- 
ships and trials. 

Having now shown that there is a promise of spiritual rest to be- 
lievers, implied in what the Jewish Scriptures say, the apostle repeats 
the caution, which lay so near his heart, against unbelief in the Saviour, 
and the consequences of it. 

Ver. 11. Zrovddowpev obv ... ameceiac, let us earnestly endea- 
vour then, to enter into that rest, [the rest of God,] lest any one 
should perish, in like munner, through unbelief. °Ev 79 aur@ irocely- 
part, after the same example, after the like manner, viz. as_ they 
(the Israelites) perished. Iléoy is often used in this way, in an intran- 
sitive sense. ’AzecSelac 1 take to be the genitive (as grammarians say) 
of means, instrument, &c. 

The awful nature of the commination, that unbelievers should not 
enter into the rest of God, the writer now describes, in order to leave 
a deep impression on the minds of his readers, and to guard them more 
effectually against unbelief and apostacy. 

Ver. 12. Ziv yap... . évepyic, for the declaration of God has an 
active and mighty power, or, is enduring and powerful, i.e. has an 
efficiency that never ceases. The meaning according to the latter inter- 
pretation is, that the commination, uttered in ancient days, against 
unbelievers, (and which had been repeated above by the. writer) has 
abated nothing from its force or efficacy, down to the present time ; 
it still lives; unbelievers are still subject to its power. In defence of 
this interpretation, it might be said that @éy is applied here to the 
divine word, i. e. commination, in a manner like that in which it is 
applied to God in the phrase 7 ON, Oedc ZHy, often used in the Scrip- 
tures, which designates him as eternal, immortal, never dying, endowed 
with unfailing life, in opposition to idols destitute of a living principle, 
and made of perishable materials. It is evident, too, that the sense 
of perpetual or perennial, may be considered as appropriate to the 
passage before us. 

But others interpret {ov as meaning actzve, a sense which is common 
to this word, and to the Hebrew 7. I understand both terms as con- 
veying the idea of active and mighty energy ; which is altogether appro- 
priate to the writer’s purpose, whose object it is to persuade his hearers, 
that the commination uttered against the unbelievers of former days, and 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Iv. 12. 345 


which is still in force, has a dreadful power, at which they ought to 
shudder. 

Kat ropwrepoc . . . . dvoropov, and sharper than any two-edged sword, 
i. e, it has a more effective power to inflict wounds, than a sword with 
two edges. The efficacy of divine commination is often compared to a 
sharp sword. E. g. the Son of man is represented by John, as having, 
when he appeared to him in vision, a sharp two-edged sword issuing from 
his mouth, i. e. his words cut as it were like a sharp sword, or his 
reproof, commination, wounded deeply, ‘Revid.016 Mail?) 16)s sere 
15, 21. Compare also Isa. xlix. 2; xi. 4, in which last passage the 
expression is, with the rod of his mouth, and in the parallel arixoc, with 
the breath of his lips, [with his words] shall he slay the wicked. Lan- 
guage then of reproof, of severe threats or commination, or of condem- 
nation, is by the sacred writers called the sword or rod of the mouth. 
So in our verse, the divine commination is represented as terribly effica- 
cious, by resorting to the same species of imagery in order to make a 
comparison. 

Kai dtixvotpevog . . . . xvedparoc. The writer continues the descrip- 
tion of the efficacy of the divine threatening, by carrying on still further 
the description of the effects produced by a sharp sword upon the 
natural body. Piercing even so as to separate life and spirit. vy, 
when used as here, in distinction from zvedpua, means the animal soul or 
principle of animal life in man; as zvedpa in such a case means, the 
rational or intellectual soul, the immaterial principle within man. See 
1 Thess. v. 23, where cHpa is added, in order to designate the merely 
physical or corporeal part of the human system. In the phrase under 
consideration, piercing so as to divide [or separate] life and spirit, 
plainly means inflicting a wound so deep as shall prove deadly ; for that 
which separates the soul from the system endowed with animal life, is of 
course deadly. We may paraphrase both expressions thus; a sharp 
sword that inflicts deadly wounds. 

‘App@y re Kat pueh@y, [piercing so as to divide] joints and marrow, 
i. e. so as to divide the joints or limbs from the body, (which was often 
done in the severer kinds of punishment ;) and so as to pierce through 
the very bone to the marrow, or to separate the marrow from the bone, 
by perforating it; a tremendous image of the sharpness of the sword and 
the effects it produces. The sense is, that the divine commination is of 
most deadiy punitive efficacy. 

Kal xpirixog . —. «« ~Kapdiac, he also Judges [takes cognizance of] the 


346 ‘ COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 13. 


desires and purposes of the heart, i. e. Oede KpiriKdc éo7t. That xperexoc, 
aptus ad judicandum, here applies to God, and not to Aeyoe, seems evi- 
dent. That there is a transition to Oedc is quite evident from ver. 13, 
where évwziov adrov, dpSapoig airov, and mpdc 6y, one cannot well 
doubt, are to be applied to God. There is, then, a transition somewhere 
to Ozeoc ; and the nature of the case shows, that the appropriate place 
for it is at kal kperuxoc. In the preceding part of the verse, Adyoc Oeod, 
divine commination, is represented (very forcibly and properly) as puni- 
tive. This idea is consummated by the phrase which ends with pvedGr ; 
and as Ogd¢ comes in as the subject of discourse, in the sequel, (at least 
in ver. 13,) I see no place so apposite for its introduction, as at cat xpe- 
tuodc. Indeed, there can be no other; for, unless it comes in here, we 
must carry Aoyoc Ocov, as the subject, through the whole paragraph ; 
which does not seem to me to be the design of the writer. 

God is here represented as one who scans the whole of man’s internal 
character, and sits in judgment upon it. Consequently, as the writer 
intimates, no secret act or purposes of unbelief, or defeetion from the 
Christian cause, will remain unnoticed or unpunished. ’EySipnore and 
évvoa are nearly allied in meaning. They are both employed here, 
merely for the purpose of designating universality, i. e. the whole of 
men’s internal thoughts and purposes. 

Ver. 13. Kat ob tote .... avrov, yea, nothing is concealed from the 
view of him [i. e. of God.] Kriow means any created thing ; literally, 
act of creation, but it follows the Hebrew TN. Ov xriste means, 
no thing, bo NDO= ovdev, or TN 2 ND. 

Ildvra ...+ rTEeTpAaxnALopEVa, but all things are naked and exposed to 
the view of him, to whom we are accountable. Tpayndj<Zw is best ex- 
plained here, in the sense which the Greek classical writers attach to it. 
It means, (1.) To lay bare and bend back the neck, so as to expose the 
throat, in order to its being cut open or dissevered. Hence, (2.) To 
expose, to lay open ; which is the idea of the word in the phrase before 
us; as it is given in the translation above. "OgpSadpoic, eyes, i. e. sight, 
view, cognizance ; for it is often used in this way. 

IIpoc¢ Ov typivy 6 débyoc, literally, with whom, [before whom, in whose 
power, or, at whose disposal,] zs our account. The sense of account, 
Adyoe often has. The common way of rendering déyoc here, is, concern, 
dealing, business. This sense the word will bear; but it is less in con- 
formity with the wsws loquendi, and less apposite to the design of the 
writer. Chrysostom understands it as I have translated it. And so the 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14,—x. 18. 347 


preceding clause requires it to be rendered ; for this speaks of God, (or 
Adyoc, if you please) as kpirikde, 1. e. aptus ad judicandum ; the clause, 
now under consideration, represents men as actually accountable to him 
who is the omniscient Judge. 





View of the Contents of HEB. iv. 14.—x. 18. 


The writer now proceeds to the consideration of a subject, at which he had merely 
hinted in ch. iii. 1,; where he calls Christ the dpyepéa of the Christian religion. 
As dréoroXog (ayn m>w,) prefectus domo Dei, he had already compared him with 
Moses, ch. ili. 2—6; and then built upon the result of this comparison, the very 
solemn and affectionate warning against unbelief which follows, ch. iii, 7—19. For 
the encouragement of the Hebrew Christians, he had also taken occasion, (after having 
spoken of unbelievers as excluded from the rest of God,) to represent the promises 
still held out to believers, of enjoying that rest. Such was the case, under the ancient 
dispensation, and such, he argues, is still the case; “there remains a caBBariopoc 
for the people of God.” He then, as we have seen, concludes the subject, as usual 
with an exhortation ; in which he calls on them not to fail of this rest, ch. iv. 11; nor 
to incur the awful penalty attached to unbelief, ch. iv, 11—13. 

Having thus completed the comparison of Christ as aéarodoc with Moses, and 
drawn from the result of it those practical deductions at which our epist!e everywhere 
aims; the writer now proceeds to compare Christ, as dpyuepedc, with the Levitical 
order of priesthood ; which comparison, with its various subordinate parts, and the 
occasional warnings and comminations that now and then are intermixed, extends to 
ch. x, 18.; which is the end of what may be called the doctrinal part of our epistle, 

The mind of the writer plainly appears to have been more intensely engaged with 
comparing Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron and the Levites, than with any other 
subject in his epistle. The comparison, for example, of Christ with the angels, in 
ch. i. is short; the comparison of him with Moses, in ch. iii. still shorter. But the 
comparison of the Aaronical priesthood, as to dignity, duties, offices, and utility, 
with that of Christ, and of their functions with his, makes up, in fact, the body 
of our epistle. It is natural to inquire, why this should be so; and the obvious 
answer seems to be, ‘ Because the writer regarded this part of the Saviour’s office 
and work, as being, in a comparative sense, by far the most important. As a praest 
he made atonement for sin by the sacrifice of himself; in regard to which, no angel, 
no prophet, no teacher, no Aaronical priest, could bear a comparison with him. The 
most prominent part of all his character, as a Saviour of sinners, is, that he is “ the 
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.” 


348 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14.—x. 18. 


Nothing could be more inappropriate, than the division of chapters made, in some 
cases, in our epistle. Ch. iii. most plainly ought to be united with ch. iv. 1—43 5 
thus comprising all that properly belongs to one and the same subject. Ch, iv. 
ought to begin at ch. iv. 14, and to terminate with the end of ch. v. where there is a 
transition from doctrine to exhortation, 

In regard to the course and method of argument, pursued through this leading 
portion of our epistle, (viz. from ch. iv. 14, to ch. x. 18,) in which a comparison 
between the Aaronical priesthood and that of Christ is made, and where all that is 
connected with the office, and person, and duty of priests is also drawn into the 
comparison ; I have been able to find no satisfactory elucidation of it, in any com- 
mentator or critic whom I have perused. After attentive study of this whole passage, 
often repeated, it seems to me that the method of the writer is capable of being intel- 
ligibly stated ; and I shall now venture upon the experiment. 

The apostle introduces the topic, (to which he had adverted in ch. iii, 1, by calling 
Christ the dpxtepia ripe Sporoyiag Aydy,) by calling Jesus dpyiepia péiyay, and 
exhorting the Hebrews to hold fast the profession (6uoXoyiac) which they had made, 
ch. iv. 14. He again hints, very briefly, an encouragement to persevere, although 
subjected to trials and afflictions, because of the sympathy that the Saviour would 
feel for them, as having possessed a nature like theirs, exposed to trial and suffering, 
ch. iv. 15, 16. But as he had already dwelt at large on this topic (ch. ii. 16—18,) 
he merely adverts to it here, and passes on to suggest the points of comparison between 
the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ. 

(1.) Every priest is appointed in behalf of men, in order that he may superintend 
and direct the concerns which men have with God, and may present their oblations 
and sacrifices before him, ch. v. 1. 

(2.) Every priest, being himself “compassed with infirmity,’ 
own experience to sympathize with others in like condition; and because of his own 
sins and imperfections, it becomes his duty to offer expiatory sacrifices for himself 


? 


is prepared by his 


as well as for them, ch. v. 2, 3. 

(3.) No priest appoints himself to the sacred office ; his appointment is by divine 
direction, ch. v. 4. 

In making a comparison of Christ, as high-priest, with the Aaronical priests, in 
regard to the points here stated, the apostle inverts the order in which they are 
brought forward, and shows : 

(1.) That Christ was constituted high priest by Divine appointment. This he 
proves in ver. 5, 6, by quotations from the second Psalm, and also from Ps. ex. 4. 

(2.) He then passes to the second topic of comparison, viz. the infirmity of the 
nature which Christ, our great high priest, possessed ; and which qualified him, ina 
peculiar manner, to sympathize with the infirmities of his people. He represents 
Christ as having, during his incarnate state, uttered vehement supplications on account 
of his trials and distresses, and as experiencing, like other men, deliverance from 
them, ch. v. 7. Even though he was clothed with the dignity of the Son of God, he 
acquired a practical knowledge of what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings, 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. IV. 14.—x., 18. 343 


ch. v. 8. Thus was he fitted perproraSeiv roic dyvootcr; and having ‘thus obeyed 
and suffered, in consequence thereof, he was exalted to glory (reAetwOsic,) where, as 
kingly high priest, after the order of Melchisedek, he is an all-sufficient Saviour to 
those who believe and obey him, ch. v. 9, 10. 

As one of the proofs that Christ was exalted to be an all-sufficient Saviour, the 
writer has again, ver. 10, produced the passage, which asserts him to be a priest for 
ever, after the order of Melchisedek, i. e. a kingly priest, whose office is not of limited 
extent, or temporary duration. But having thus introduced a topic attended with dif- 
ficulty, and demanding an enlightened knowledge of the Scriptures and of the nature of 
Christianity, in order to be rightly and fully comprehended, the apostle stops short in 
the prosecution of his subject, in order to admonish those whom he was addressing, 
with regard to the little progress which they had made, in such knowledge as would 
render them adequate fully to comprehend the discussion concerning the topic in 
question, in which he was about to engage. His reproof for their comparative igno- 
rance, he pursues through ch. v. 11—14. In ch. vi. 1—8, he warns them against the 
awful danger which would result from stopping short or turning back in their course, 
in order that he might thus excite them to more diligence and exertion, respecting reli- 
gious improvement. Notwithstanding the seeming severity of his remarks in regard to 
his topic, he assures them that he has an affectionate confidence in their good estate, 
ch. vi. 9; and this, because God will have regard to the benevolent character which 
they had before exhibited, ch. vi. 10. He then exhorts them to press forward iu their 
Christian course, ch, vi. 11; and assures them, that the promise and oath of God are 
pledged, that believers who persevere shall attain to salvation, ch. vi. 13—19. 

After this digression, (if that may be called digression which is so directly con- 
cerned with the main object of the writer,) he proceeds to descant upon the topic or 
Christ’s priesthood, as instituted by God, and compared with that of Melchisedek, 
which had been brought to view by the text of scripture cited in ch. v. 6, 10. 

In order to do this so as to make a strong impression, he begins by giving an 
account of the dignity of Melchisedek. He was king of Salem, and priest of the most 
high God ; his superiority was acknowledged by Abraham, when he paid him a tithe 
of the spoils which he had taken, ch, vii. 1, 2. The same Melchisedek was not 
descended from priests, (and therefore his office did not fall to him by the mere right of 
succession, but was the special appointment of God;) he has no genealogy assigned 
him in the sacred writings, nor any limited term mentioned in which his priesthood 
began or expired; like Christ’s priesthood, his is unlimited, ch. vii. 3. Abraham 
himself, exalted as this patriarch was, acknowledged the superiority of Melehisedek 5 
and the Levitical priests, descended from him, did, as it were, acknowledge tlie same by 
their progenitor who paid this homage, and to whom they must be counted inferior, 
ch. vii. 4—7. Besides, the Levitical priests, who receive tithes, hold their office only 
for a limited duration ; while Melchisedek is a priest for an unlimited time, ch. vii. 8. 
Indeed, (if one may venture so to express himself,) the Levites themselves paid tithes 
to Melchisedek, through Abraham their progenitor, ch. vii. 9, 10. 

Thus much for the superiority of Melchisedek over the Levitical priests. The con- 


350 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. IV. 14.---x. 18. 


clusion, in this case, is left to be supplied by the reader’s mind, after the manner in 
which Paul often writes. The reasoning is thus: ‘‘ Christ is a priest, after tne order of 
Melchisedek; Melchisedek is superior to the Aaronical priests; consequently, Christ, 
as a priest, is superior to them.” 

The writer next proceeds to another topic of great importance, and which very natu- 
rally connected itself with the consideration of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with 
that of Melchisedek. If, says, he, the Levitical priesthood was adequate for all the 
purposes of atonement, and for the purification of the consciences of sinners, then, what 
necessity that the appointment of another priest should be made, as is predicted in 
Ps. cx. 4, Heb. vii. 11. Now, another order of priesthood necessarily demands a 
change of former institutions, ch. vii, 12; and that another order is necessary, follows 
from the fact, that Christ (the priest after the new order) was to spring from the tribe 
of Judah, ch. vii. 13. Still more evident must it be, that the order would be different, 
because the new priestly office is to be perpetual, ch. vil. 15—17. Consequently, the 
old order of things gives place to a new and better one, ch. vii. 18, 19. 

Besides, the new priest is appointed by the solemnity of an oath, while the 
Aaronical priests were not, ch.vii.20,21;consequently, we must suppose the new order 
of things to be superior, ch. vii. 22. This superiority appears specially in the fact, that 
the priesthood of Christ is perpetual, while that of the Levites was constantly changing 
by succession, ch, vii. 23, 24. Christ, therefore, is an adequate and never-fuiling 
helper, to all who come unto God through him, ch. vii. 25. 

It is thus that the apostle illustrates, enlarges, and confirms his views, respecting the 
subject introduced in ch. v. 6, 10, by a quotation from Ps. cx. 4, respecting the priest- 
hood of Christ. The amount of the argument is, that by the oath of God, Christ was 
appointed to his priesthood, while the Aaronical priests were appointed without such a 
solemnity ; that the priesthood itself, being of the order of Melchisedek, i. e. not by 
descent, not limited, net temporary, and of higher dignity than that of Aaron, Christ 
must be regarded as altogether superior to the order of Jewish priests. The inference 
of course is, that the Hebrews ought not to forsake him who was a superior priest, in 
order to attach themselves to those who were inferior ones. 

Having thus completed what he had to say, respecting the comparison of Christ and 
Melchisedek as priests, (all of which is employed to the advantage of the cause which 
he is advocating) the writer resumes the topic which he had begun in ch. v. 7, 8, viz. 
that of Christ’s sympathy with those ‘¢ who are compassed with infirmity.” He had 
already suggested there, that Christ possessed all the common sympathies and inno- 
cent infirmities of our nature, in common with other priests. But not to leave it 
uncertain, whether in all respects Jesus was “‘ compassed with such infirmities” as the 
Jewish priests, he now proceeds to point out one important difference, viz. that the 
high priest of the new dispensation is altogether superior to the priests of the old, in 
regard to the moral purity and perfection of his character. He is holy, and altogether 
sinless, ch. vii. 26; and therefore needs not, like them, to offer any sacrifice on his own 
account, ver. 27; forhe has no such infirmity as renders this at all necessary, since he 
is priest in a state of perfection and glorious exaltation, ver. 28. 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14.—x. 18. 351 


Having thus shown the superiority of Christ over the Levitical priests, in respect to 
the second particular, viz. the qualifications for sympathizing with erring men, the 
writer next proceeds to the most important topic of all, viz. the office of Christ, as a 
priest, in directing the concerns of men with God, and in presenting a propitiatory 
sacrifice for them. 

He begins by averring, that the principal thing, (cepdAator,) in respect to the mat- 
ters which he is discussing, is the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, ch. 
viii: 1, 2. He then re-introduces the topic, which he had before stated in ch. v. 1 
Taking for granted the truth of the sentiment there stated, he now draws the inference 
from it, that Christ (being a priest) must also have an offering to present, ch. viii. 1—3. 
But if Christ were on earth, he could not be a priest ; for priests, whose office it is to 
perform duty in the earthly sanctuary, are already constituted by divine appointment, 
ver. +; and these perform their office in a temple that is merely a copy or resemblance 
of the heavenly one, ver. 5. Christ’s ministry is as much superior to theirs, as the new 
covenant is to the old one, ver. 6 ; and the Scripture itself predicts, that the old cove- 
nant should be abolished, and the new one introduced in its stead, ver. 7—13. Of 
course, the new covenant must be superior ; and Christ, who ministers in the heavenly 
temple, must be superior to those who serve merely in the earthly one. 

Next, the writer proceeds to consider the manner and design of the sacerdotal service, 
and the ends which could be accomplished by it. 

The earthly temple consisted of various apartments, and contained a variety of 
utensils, ch. ix. 1—5. The priests performed daily service in the outer temple, ver. 6 ; 
while the high priest entered the inner one (where God dwelt) only once in each 
year, when he presented the blood of the great atoning sacrifice, ver. 7. A permission 
to enter only so seldom into the inner sanctuary, showed that free access to God, at all 
times and places, was not yet disclosed, while the first dispensation lasted, ver. 8. In- 
deed, these rites, with all their appurtenances, were merely a symbol of what was to 
be effected under the gospel, ver. 9, 10. 

Christ, on the other hand, the heavenly high priest, entered the eternal sanctuary 
with his own blood, procuring everlasting redemption for sinners, ver. 11, 12. The 
blood of bulls and goats, presented by the Jewish high priest, effected nothing more 
than ceremonial, external purification, ver. 13; while the blood of Christ purifies the 
conscience, and renders the worshipper truly acceptable to God, ver. 14. 

Such is the efficacy of the propitiatory sacrifice made by the death of Christ, that it 
extends back to the sins of former ages ; so that all who are called of God to partake 
of the blessings of the gospel, attain, through his death, to a heavenly inheritance, 
ver. 18. 

The mention of Christ's death here, in connexion with the assurance effected by it 
of a heavenly inheritance for believers, affords occasion to the writer to compare the 
new dvaS7xn ratified by the death of Christ, with the dtaSj«eae which are ratified by 
the death of testators. The Greek word dcaSheyn not only answers to ma, but also 
means such an arrangement as is made by a man’s last will or testameng, and is 
employed, not unfrequently, in this latter sense. Hence, our author, afier asserting 


352 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14.—x..18. 


(ver. 15) that Christ’s death made sure an inheritance to believers, falls very naturally 
upon comparing the deaS4«n thus ratified by the death of Jesus, with the duaSijeat ratified 
by the death of their respective testators. Such, says he, is the custom among men, in 
regard to testaments, that the death of the testators must supervene, in order to give 
them full effect and confirmation, ver. 16,17. Even the first duaS#xn, (me93,) although 
it could not be so appropriately called a testament, was sanctioned in a manner not 
unlike that in which the new dtaSfen is sanctioned ; for blood (the emblem of death) 
was applied to almost every thing which pertained to the ancient covenant or dtaSjen, 
in order either to ratify, or to consecrate it, ver. 18—22. Now, since this was so 
extensively done in regard to things here, which are mere resemblances or types of 
heavenly things, these heavenly things themselves, being of a nature so much more 
exalted, must be consecrated by a corresponding sacrifice, of a higher nature than any 
offered in the earthly temple, ver. 23. For it is in the heavenly temple that Christ 
discharges the functions of his priestly office, ver. 24; yet not, like the Jewish priests, 
repeating expiatory offerings frequently but once for all performing this sacred rite, 
ver. 25, 26. As men die but once, and Christ in his human nature, and by dying in 
it, made an expiatory offering, so he could make this but once; therefore, when he 
shall make his second appearance, it will not be to repeat his sin-offering, but for the 
deliverance of all who wait for his coming, ver. 27, 28. 

Having thus compared various particulars, which have respect to the priesthood of 
the descendants of Aaron, to those which relate to the priesthood of Jesus; the writer 
comes, last of all, to treat more fully of the inefficacy of the Jewish sacrifices, and of the 
perfect and everlasting efficacy of that propitiatory offering which was made by the 
high priest of the heavenly sanctuary. He had, indeed, already hinted at this, several 
times, in the preceding parts of his epistle, e. g. ch. vil. 11, 19; ch. viii. 7, 13 ch. 
ix. 8—10; ch. ix. 13, 14; but as it was the most important topic of all, and the most 
difficult to be urged on the minds of Jews, he reserved it until the last, in order that he 
might give it a more ample discussion. 

He begins by declaring, that the rites of the law were designed to be typical, and 
that the yearly sacrifices which were offered under it, never could quiet and purify the 
consciences of men, ch. x. 1; otherwise, the offerings need not have been continually 
repeated, ver. 2. The remembrance of sin is constantly renewed by them, ver. 3. Indeed, 
it is plainly impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, i. e. 
remove the penalty of it, or lessen its power, ver. 4. In accordance with this senti- 
ment, the Scripture (Ps. xl.) represents the Saviour, when entering upon his work, as 
saying, that sacrifices and offerings are of no value in the sight of God, ver. 5, 6. 
The Messiah represents himself as doing what God requires, viz. what God requires 
in order that he may exercise his clemency, ver. 7. Of course (so our author reasons) 
sacrifices and offerings are rejected, in respect to making real propitiation, while the 
“obedience of Christ unto death” is accepted instead of them, ver. 8, 9. This sacri- 
fice is truly efficacious for moral purposes, ver. 10. The Jewish priests repeated con- 
tinually their sacrifices ; but the offering of Christ, once made, is of everlasting efficacy, 
ver. 11, 12. Having once made this, he may expect the cause, on account of which 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14,—x. 18. 353 


it was made, victorious, ver, 13; for one offering, once made by Jesus, is all-sufficient ; 
its effects are never to cease, ver. 14. To such an etticacy of Christ’s offering, the 
Holy Spirit has testified in the Scriptures, by declaring, that under the new covenant 
sin should be torgiven, and iniquity no more remembered, ver. 15—17, Consequently, 
offering for sin needs not to be repeated, after pardon is actually obtained, ver. 
18. 

With this consideration, the author closes the comparison of Jesus, as a priest, with 
the Jewish priests under the Levitical dispensation, This comparison in all its parts, 
however, occupies the greater portion of his epistle, viz. from ch, iv. 14, to ch. x. 18. 
He then proceeds to exhortations, warnings, and various arguments drawn from differ- 
ent sources, in order to urge upon his Hebrew brethren the importance of persevering 
in the Christian faith. 

The writer of our epistle has sometimes been charged with being discursive, and 
with having very little connexion in the series of his reasoning. If the charge of 
discursiveness means, that he often stops short in his course of argument, in order to 
warn those whom he was addressing, against danger, and to expostulate with them, 
this is certainly true in a remarkable degree. But this is the ultimate and highest 
end, which the writer himself had in view. If he has practised digression, it is digres- 
sion exceedingly to his purpose; and altogether consonant with the unconstrained nature 
of epistolary address. 

In respect to an alleged want of connexion in the author's reasoning, the analysis 
already presented is the best answer which I can give to this charge. The method of 
reasoning seems, indeed, to have been too commonly overlooked, or to have been 
only partially discerned, in the commentaries to which I have had access; but I 
cannot help thinking that there is a connexion, which can be clearly and satisfactorily 
traced, throughout the whole, if I have succeeded in attempting to trace it, then 
the student will be aided in forming his views, with respect to the relation that 
one part of our epistle bears to another, in that portion of it which has now been 
analysed. 

If the question be asked, why the apostle should resort to comparisons of this 
nature, in order to illustrate the office of Christ, or, rather, the virtue and efficacy of 
his mediation and redemption; the answer plainly is, A regard to the condition and 
feelings of those whom he addressed, led him to do so. The Jews of that day 
regarded the office of high priest as the most honourable of all offices then sustained. 
The authority and dignity of this office were very great, in earlier times, under the 
Jewish kings. But after the captivity, the offices of king and high priest were 
frequently united in the same person. This, of course, would tend to elevate the 
esteem in which the Jews held the rank of high priest. When the Romans reduced 
Judea to a tributary province, the civil power was transferred to the procurator sent 
there by them; but the ecclesiastical power still remained in the hands of the high 
priest, who was supreme judge of the land, and president of the Sanhedrim. The 
high priest, was, moreover, the only person who could enter the most holy place, on 
the great day of national expiation, and make atonement for the people. On all 

2A 


354 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. Iv. 14.—x. 18. 


these accounts, the Jews cherished the greatest degree of reverence for this office. 
They looked upon it as their glory, and expected from the functions of it, pardon 
for sin, and acceptance with God. How difficult it was to wean them from these 
views, even those of them whe had embraced Christianity, the Acts of the Apostles, 
and almost all the apostolic epistles, abundantly testify. But this must necessarily 
be done, however difficult, if Christianity was to be fully admitted and practised by 
them. 

There can be no doubt, that the unbelieving Jews would urge with all their power, 
upon the new converts to Christianity, the views and feelings which the latter had 
once possessed in common with them, with regard to this subject. It entered into 
the very essence of Judaism, that such views and feelings should be cherished; and 
this was a trait which distinguished the Jews, in a peculiar manner, from other 
nations. The apostle, in addressing the Hebrew Christians, had to contend with such 
arguments as the adversaries of Christianity among the Jews would bring, in order to 
shake the constancy of the new converts. The splendour and the supposed impor- 
tance of the Jewish high-priesthood, however, was, after all, a thing which Jewish 
Christians must be brought to renounce. How could they, educated as they had 
been, do this? To satisfy their minds on this subject, the apostle presents a com- 
parison of this office in all its various respects, with the office of high priest, as sus- 
tained by Christ ; and he shows that, instead of giving up any thing, by embracing 
the new religion, they would only exchange a high priest who was imperfect, who 
offered sacrifices that effected a purification only external, and of mere temporary 
efficacy, who officiated in a temple made with hands—all the mere type or symbol of 
something that was of a spiritual and more exalted nature—all this they would ex- 
change, by embracing and adhering to the Christian religion, for a high priest without 
sin, whose sacrifice “ purged the conscience from dead works,” and had an “ ever- 
lasting efficacy ;” which was offered too in a temple not made with hands, of which 
the Jewish temple, with all its splendour and solemn pomp, was only a mere image. 
Could any thing, now, be better adapted to fortify the minds of those to whom he 
wrote, in their Christian profession, and to wean them from their old prejudices? 
And is it not allowable, that an apostle should reason in a manner best adapted to 
the condition and feelings of those whom he addresses ? 

I am aware that much has been said by recent commentators, on arguing rar’ 
&v3pwrov, or in a way of accommodation, in our epistle; and that all the com. 
parisons made in it, between things and persons, under the law and under the gospel, 
have been ranked with this class of reasoning or argument. For those who do not 
acknowledge the divine origin of the Jewish religion, nor that any of its rites, sacrifices 
or persons, were symbolical of anything belonging to Christianity, such a mode of 
explanation may be necessary. But for those who believe, with the writer of our 
epistle, that the Jewish religion was of God, and that the ancient Scriptures have 
revealed a Messiah; very little, if any, of arguing merely in the way of accommodation, 
in our epistle, needs to be admitted. Does not the one hundred-and-tenth Psalm 
call Christ a high priest? And did not the Jews of Paul’s day admit (as well as 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Iv. 14. 355 


Paul himself) that this Psalm had respect to the Messiah ? Undoubtedly they did. 
Where then is the accommodation of the writer to the mere prejudices of those whom he 
addressed, when it is evident that both he and they entertained an opinion in common, 
with regard to the exegesis of the one hundred-and-tenth Psalm? Of course, both 
admitted that Christ wits to be a high priest. But how? Why? Not of the ordinary 
kind; for he did not descend from Aaron. Not to make an expiation which should 
merely pertain to external purification; but to make an expiation which should purge 
“ the conscience from dead works,” and which should procure the pardon of sin with 
God, and “ bring in everlasting redemption for his people.” 

It is not, then, merely to satisfy the Jew, that he need relinquish nothing of his regard 
for the excellence and importance of the office of high priest, by embracing Chris- 
tianity, and that he has exchanged a less splendid office of priest under Judaism, for 
a more splendid one under Christianity, that Paul dwells so long on the virtues and 
dignity of Christ’s office as high priest. No doubt, he had this object in his eye, as [ 
have already stated, when he entered upon the consideration of this topic. But why 
does he dwell on it so much longer than he does on the comparison of Christ with 
Moses? Not because the Jews exalted the high priest above Moses, for this surely 
they did not. It was because Christ, in the office of high priest, performed that pecu- 
liar duty, which, of all others, made him what he was, the SAVIOUR of sinners, the 
REDEEMER of lost men; because, as priest, he offered an expiatory sacrifice, 
which takes away the sins of the world, and makes him the propitiation for their 
offences. I am entirely unable to explain the copiousness of our epistle on this point, 
if this be not the reason of it. And if this be admitted, then there is reason enough 
why the apostle should dwell so long upon it. 

I know of no part of the Scriptures which explains the nature and object of the 
Jewish ritual in a manner so spiritual, so satisfactory, so clear, so worthily of God, and 
so profitably to us, as ch. v—x. of the epistle to the Hebrews. As a key to the Old 
Testament, these chapters deserve the most attentive and thorough study of all who 
wish to understand the Bible. As a statement and vindication of the great work of 
Christ, and the atonement which he made by his blood for sin, they stand in the very 
first rank ofall the scripture writings. As adapted to the wants and condition of those 
whom the apostle addressed, they are a consummate specimen of skilful argument, and 
of powerful persuasion and remonstrance. 


Ver. 14, "Exovrec obv apxtepéa péyay ; moreover, since we have a great 
High-priest. So the words, literally construed, seem to mean. But it 
is doubtful whether this translation conveys the exact shade of meaning 
which should be attached to the original. In the apostle’s day, dpyuepeve 
no longer designated merely one man, the single head of the whole 
priesthood, but it was applied also to his deputy (120) to those who 
had quitted the office of the high-priesthood (exauctorati;) and also to 
the priests, at the head of each of the twenty-four classes of the priest- 

2a 


- 


356 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Iv. 15. 


hood. The word dpxuepede, of itself, then, without any adjunct, did not 
in the time of Paul, designate the high-priest by way of eminence, who 
was the only person that could enter the most holy place, and make 
atonement for sin. Hence the apostle says, not sgnply apxrepeve, but 
dpxtepsde péyae; which designates a specific individual. This corre- 
sponds exactly to the idea conveyed by the Hebrew 173 17D, which was 
applied only to him who was actually Pontefex Maximus. 

AuedydvSéra rode oblpavode, passed through the heavens. Wahl and 
others, passed into the heavens ; interpreting ¢ceAnAvOdra as equivalent 
to eicepxopevoy, entered into. But they seem to me plainly to have 
mistaken the force of the writer’s expression here. According to the 
Hebrew idiom, God dwells above the visible firmament, DYDW, ovparee. 
Through this Jesus passed, when he ascended to take his “ seat at the 
right hand of the majesty on high,” ch. i. 3. There is a plain allusion, 
too, to the high-priest of the Jews, who, once in a year, went into the 
most holy place, passing through the veil, which screened the residence 
of divine majesty from the view of men, ch. ix. 7, 8. So, our great 
high-priest has passed through the heavens, into the immediate presence 
of God, into the “ holy of holies” in the upper world. This explana- 
tion, which Bengel and Owen defend, I must think to be the right one ; 
although Ernesti ventures to call it stulta animadversio. 

"Iycovy roy vidy rou Seov is added, to show whom he means by dpytepéa. 
Kparépev rij¢ dporoyiac let us firmly hold [tenaciously adhere to] the 
religion which we have professed, viz. Christianity. Kparéw takes either 
the accusative or genitive after it. 

To encourage them to follow this advice, the writer sets before them 
the assistance which they may expect, in their efforts so to do. 

Ver. 15. Ov yap... . doSeveiace hudy, for we have not a high priest 
who is incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses. The form of 
the expression is negative ; a mode of expression frequently employed by 
the sacred writers. When the negative form is thus employed, it is of 
the same meaning as an affirmative assertion would be, i.e. it is the same 
in this case, as if the author had said, ‘‘ We have a high priest, who will 
sympathize with our weaknesses.” So, “‘ John confessed, and denied 
not, but confessed,” &c. John i. 20. In most cases, however, there is 
some intensity of colouring designed to be given, when this negative 
form of expression is chosen, in preference to simple affirmation. 

Iléreipacpévoy, see on ch. i. 18. Kara ravra, in all respects ; not to 
be metaphysically or mathematically taken. The meaning is, that he, 


COMMENTARY ON BEB. IV. 16. obo 


like us, was subjected to trial by suffering on account of the truth; 
he, like us, was solicited to sin, e. g. when Satan tempted him, and often 
when the Scribes and Pharisees tempted him. 

Ka¥ 6pordrnra, scil. jay, i. e. who was tempted like us ; raparAnoiwe 
ipo@y, says Theophylact ; Opoiwe ypiv, Origen. This surely does not 
imply, that temptations had, in all respects, the same influence upon him 
as upon us; but only, that he was exposed to be attacked by them, in 
like manner as we are. He possessed a nature truly human, ch. ii. 14.17; 
he was, therefore, susceptible of being excited by the power of tempta- 
tions, although he never yielded to them. So the writer : 

Xwpic dpapriac, without sin; i.e. although assailed by temptations 
of every kind, he never yielded, in any case, to their influence. He 
remained sinless. But why is this here asserted? Principally, I appre- 
hend, to guard against any mistake, in respect to what the writer had 
just said. To show the Hebrews, that they might depend on the sym- 
pathy and compassion of their high priest, (compare ch. ii. 17, 18,) to 
help them, in all the trials and difficulties to which an unshaken adhe- 
rence to Christianity would subject them, he declares that Jesus was 
himself subject to the like trials, in all respects. But when he had so 
said, as if fearing they might draw the conclusion, that in in some cases, 
at least, he was (like others) overcome by them, the author immediately 
adds, ywpic dapriac. It may be, that the expression implies an exhorta- 
tion thus, viz. ‘‘ Jesus when tried did not sin; Christian brethren, follow 
his example.” I prefer, however, the former explanation. 

Ver. 16. Let us, then, approach the throne of grace, pera wappyciac, 
with freedom of speech; i.e. since we have such a sympathizing, com- 
passionate high priest, to offer our supplication to God, and to help us, 
let us go to God with confidence that we shall receive the aid that we 
need. ‘ Ask, and ye shall receive.” To Spdry rije xaprrog has reference 
to the mercy-seat, in the temple, on which God is represented as sitting 
enthroned. There he heard the supplications of his people, presented 
by the high priest ; there he accepted their oblations; and from thence 
he dispensed to them the blessings which they needed. Christians may 
now approach the mercy-seat in heaven, by their high priest, and may 
come, pera tappnolac, with confidence. 

“Iva \aBwper Edeov, that we may obtain mercy, i.e. that compassion 
may be exercised towards Christians, in their afflictions and trials. 
Kai xdpw evpwpev....Boleav, and find favour in respect to timely 
assistance. Xdpu does not differ much here, from é\eov, except that it 


358 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 1. 


is a word of a more generic nature. The sentiment is, be helped oppor- 
tunely ; i. €. now, when we are persecuted and sorely pressed by trials, 
we may obtain that aid which such seasons require. This is exactly the 
idea conveyed by e¥capor PohSeav, auxilium opportunum. Literally 
the Greek runs thus, And find grace, with respect to opportune 


assistance. 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. "EE avSphrwv AapPardpevoc, selected, taken from men. So 
AaBeiy, in Acts xv. 14. In a similar sense, mp2 is often used in 
Hebrew; and Xapdvw, not unfrequently, in the classics. The meaning 
is, that priests, appointed according to the usages of the Levitical law, are 
appointed to have the oversight of the religious concerns of the people, 
specially to make their oblations and sacrifices. 

‘Yrep dvSporwy Kcadisarae ra mpoc Tov Orov, 28 constituted for the 
benefit of men, in relation to their concerns with God. Kaisarat is 
often employed to designate an appointment to office of any kind; e. g. 
Matt. xxiv. 45. Luke xii. 14, et al. So, also, it is used by heathen 
writers. ‘Yép, for the benefit of, for the sake of, on account of; a 
frequent use of the word. Ta rpdc¢ roy Oeoy, for cara 7a, x. 7. X. there 
being an ellipsis of the preposition, which is very common in such cases. 
The idea is, ‘‘ In respect to their religious concerns ; in regard to business 
which they have to transact with God ;” particularly, 

“Iva rpoogepy. . . . dpapridy, that he may offer [to God] both oblatzons 
and sacrifices for sin. Aépa I take here to mean, the various kinds 
of thank-offerings, &c. that were to be presented to God, agreeably to 
the ritual established by Moses; and Svaiac, the various sin and tres- 
pass offerings, that were made with slain beasts. To the act of slaying 
Suaiac refers, as it is derived from Swvw, to Rll. In all these, and the 
like concerns, the high priest was to act the part of an internuntius, a 
mediator, between God and men; i. e. he was to aid men in regard to 
their spiritual or religious concerns. It should be remarked, however, 
that d@pa sometimes includes the idea of sacrifices, e. g. ch. viii. 4, com- 
pare ch, vill. 3. Yet, where both dwpa and Svoia are employed, they 
are not to be regarded as synonymes. Both are employed to designate 
the universality of the idea intended, i.e. (in this case) offerings of 
every kind. 


COMMEN'TARY ON HEB. V. 2. 359 


Ver. 2. Merpioradeiv duvapevoc, one who can exercise gentleness or mo- 
deration. This classic or philosophic use of the word perpioraseiy may be 
briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a man should be araSiec, 
i. e, not subject to passions, such as anger, fear, hope, joy, &c. The 
Platonists, on the other hand, averred, that a wise man should be 
perpworadijc, moderate in his affections, and not a&maSijc. The leading 
sense, then, of the word perpromadety, is to be moderate in our feelings or 
passions. In our text, the connexion shows us, that this moderation 
or gentleness was to be exercised by the high priest, rote ayvoovcr Kat 
mravwpevoc, toward those who were ignorant and erring. In other 
words, he was to be lenient towards offenders, to treat them with gentle- 
ness and moderation, with kindness, and not with severity. The com- 
parison of Christ as a priest, in respect to this point, is presented in 
ch. v. 7—9, and ch. vii. 26—28. 

"Ayvoovar kai mavwpevorc some have construed as a Hendiadys, and 
rendered the phrase thus: those who ignorantly offend, or, who offend 
through tgnorance. But surely the indulgence of the high priest on 
earth was not limited merely to this class of offenders, much less is the 
clemency of our great high priest in the heavens so limited. ’Ayvoéw is 
repeatedly used by the LXX. as a translation of the Hebrew 712, AW, DWN, 
which signify, to err, to commit sin, to render one’s self guilty. So Sirac. 
ch. v.18, iz a great or little thing, prj ayvoet, sin not. So Polyb. V. 11. 5, 
TonEpetv Toic ayvonoact, to make war on those who have been faulty. 
But if any should think it preferable, in our verse, to retain the common 
sense of zgnorance, then plainly it must be construed of voluntary 
criminal ignorance; and, in such a case, tAavwpévore designates those 
who commit offences in consequence of such ignorance. But I prefer 
the other rendering, which makes a@yvoover cai 7wavwpévote to be an accu- 
mulation of descriptive words, in order to designate offenders of various 
kinds. This comports better too with fact, either in relation to the office 
of the Levitical priest in the earthly sanctuary, or to that of Jesus in the 
heavenly one. ? 

"Evel cat... aoSéveray, since he himself is compassed wich infirmity, 
i. e. he is himself an offender, or, he is exposed by his weaknesses to 
commit the like sins with those whose offerings he is called to present 
to God. Iepixerrat, in the passive, is construed with an accusative 
after it. "AgSéveea means here, moral infirmity, or weakness, not 
natural frailty of the physical system. The meaning is, that the high 


priest, ‘‘ haud ignarus mali, miseris succurrere discit.” 
, phan 


360 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. J, 4, 5, 6. 


Ver. 3. Kai dua ravrny . . . dpapridy, and on this account, [viz. 
because he is himself a sinner,] he must present sin-offerings, as well 
for himself as for the people.  Mpoopepeir, 1. €. rpdcpopay vel Buaiay, 
Hebrew my Tyr. IIpocgépw is the common word employed to 
denote the presentation of an offering, gift, or sacrifice to God, and cor- 
responds to the Hebrew my, or rather, myn in Hiphil. See the 
superiority of Christ represented, in respect to the poit here suggested, 
in ch. vii. 26—28. 

Ver. 4. Kaiovx éavro . . . "Aapwy, moreover, no one can assume the 
honour [of the high priesthood] to himself, but he is appointed by God, 
even as Aaron was. Kadovpevoc, 1. e. dei kadodpevoc elvat. 

Ver. 5. Otrw cai. . . apxeepea, accordingly, Christ did not claim 
for himself the honour of being high priest, or, Christ did not exalt 
himself to the honour of being high priest.  Aogfdgew, to exalt, to 
claim honour for, John vi. 54. Rom. xi. 13. 

"ANN’ 6 Aadtoac . . . yeyévinxa oe, but he who said to him, Thou 
art my son, this day have I begotten thee, éddtacey avroy, exalied 
him.| So the ellipsis must be supplied. The meaning is, exalted him 
to the office of high priest; 1. e. the Father bestowed this honour upou 
the Son, see on ch. i. 5; or, in other words, he was divinely appointed. 

Ver. 6. Kadwe kat éy erépy Eyer, so also he declares in another pas- 
sage [of scripture.] The declaration is, that the Father constituted 
the Son a priest; for the writer had affirmed, in ver. 4, that a priest 
must be divinely constituted. The quotation is from Ps. cx. 4; a 
Psalm which, as I have before remarked, not only the apostle and most 
Christian commentators, but even the Jewish rabbies in general, agree, 
has relation to the Messiah. 

Bv tepeve . . . MeAyuoedex, thow art a priest for ever, after the 
order of Melchisedek. ‘lepevc designates here a priest generically con- 
sidered. The Psalmist, and after him the apostle, does not say, apy:- 
epevc, because the sequel shows that the personage referred to must be 
of the highest order of Tue viz. of the same order with that of Mel- 
chisedek. 

Kara tH rabev, Hebrew 37 by, ite: MAT Dy. for 9 is paragogic 
here. This Hebrew phrase commonly means, on account of? for the 
sake of ; but such a meaning would be wholly inapposite in Ps. cx. 4. 
The sense of it, as there employed, plainly is similar to that of WT 
in Deut. xv. 9; xix. 4. 1 Kings ix. 15, viz. manner, order, arrange- 


ment, kind. So the classic sense of raéic is, order, arrangement, place, 


CCMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 6. 361 


office, rank. The simple meaning is, “‘ Thou art a priest, of an order or 
rank like that of Melchisedek.” 

When in ver. 10, the writer repeats the quotation here made, he uses 
apxtepetc instead of tepedc, the word employed in his first quotation. 
The object of the quotation in ver. 6, is simply to prove, that the office 
of high priest was conferred on Christ by Divine appointment; comp. 
ver. 4, and 6. The particulars of the comparison, in respect to the 
priesthood of Christ and Melchisedek, are not immediately brought into 
view, but suspended until the writer has introduced other considerations 
relative to Christ as a priest, ch. v. 7—9. and given vent to his feelings 
of concern for those whom he was addressing, by suggesting various 
considerations, adapted to reprove, ch. v. 11—14; to warn, ch. vi. 
1—9; as well as to excite and animate them, ch. vi. 10—20. 

In regard to xara rdv aiéva, it is to be taken in a qualified sense 
here, as often elsewhere, e. g. compare Luke i. 33, with 1 Cor. xv. 
24—28. The priesthood of Christ will doubtless continue no longer 
than his mediatorial reign; for when his reign as mediator ceases, his 
whole work both as mediator and as priest will have been accomplished. 

In respect to the application of Ps. ex. to the Messiah, see Matt. 
xxil. 41—45. certain it is, from this passage, that Jesus considered 
and treated this Psalm as applying to himself. 

The three following verses I take to be a comment on ch. v. 2; or, 
to express my meaning more fully, a comparison of Christ, as a priest, 
which the Jewish priests, who being themselves compassed with infirmity, 
were taught by experience peTpwomasety roicg wyvooter Kat TAVWpLEVOLC. 
It is, however, only the infirmities of one exposed to suffering, that are 
brought to view here. These Christ possessed in full, so that he could, 
like other priests, sympathize with those who are tempted, and tried by 
suffering. None of his disciples are tried more severely than he was. 

The writer, however, does not complete this topic here. He breaks 
off, in order to pursue the course of thought to which the introduction 
of Melchisedek’s priesthood led him, and for the sake of inserting prac- 
tical warning, reproof, and exhortation, ch. v. 11.—vii.55; and in ch. 
vii.26, he resumes the consideration of the topic thus interrupted, and 
shows, that as to sinful infirmities, Christ was not to be compared 
with the Jewish priests; for he had none of them. Thus, while, 
like other priests, he was fitted to exercise compassion on those who 
are suffering and are tempted, he was altogether superior to them in 
the moral perfection of his own character. He needed no sin-offering 


362 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 7. 


<% 
for himself, (compare ch. v. 4;) but was high priest in a state, where 
he was ic rov aidva rerehecwpévoy, Ch. vii. 26—28. 

Ver. 7. “Oc év raic tpépare rife capKkdc atrov, who, during the time of 
his incarnation. ‘Hyépat, like the Hebrew D3, means, time, season. 
Tijig¢ capxog I understand, as designating the condition of the Locos 
incarnate, or éy oapxti; compare Johni. 1.14, 1 Tim. iii. 16. The 
whole expression designates the period of the Saviour’s humiliation, 
when “ he was tempted in all points as we are,” ch. iv. 15. 

Agijoete Kal ixernpiac . . . mpocevéykac, offered up prayers and sup- 
plications. These two words are often joined; by profane writers; e. g. 
ixernolac moda Kal dehoece Totovpevor, Isoc. de Pace. Xwople d€ ixern- 
piac kat dehoewc, Philo de Cherub. p. 116. So also Lucian and Plu- 
tarch. Some critics have referred defcere to prayers proceeding from a 
sense of need ; and ixernpiac to submissive intercession. But althongh, 
in some cases, the words may be thus employed, they are generally 
used as synonymous, or nearly so. The conjunction of both these 
synonymes denotes intensive supplication or intercession; a mode of 
expressing intensity, which is very frequent in the sacred writings. 

IIpdc roy duvdpevoy oolew avroy ex Savarov, 1. e. to the sovereign 
Lord of life and death, the ‘‘ God in whose hands our breath is, and 
whose are all our ways :” a periphrasis, in this case, which means, God 
who is possessed of supreme power, or, the sovereign Lord of life and 
death. 

Mera xpavyie ioyupdc Kat Oaxpvwy, voce altd et lacrymis, with loud 
cries, and with tears or weeping. See Luke xxii. 41—44. Matt. xxvi. 
38, 39; xxvii. 46. Mark xv. 34—36. Compare Luke xu. 50. John 
xii. 27, 28. Kpavyije isyupac denotes the intensity of the voice, as 
raised high by agonizing supplication, Luke xxi. 44. The evangelists 
do not mention the weeping of the Saviour; but who can doubt that 
he did weep, when he prayed in such an agony, that he sweat as it were 
drops of blood? Luke xxi. 14. 

Kai eisaxovadele aro rig evdafelac, and was heard in respect to that 
which he feared, or was delivered from that which he feared. The 
classic sense of ciAdBera is, fear, dread ; and this is the sense in which 
it is commonly employed in the Septuagint. But as the Hebrew words 
Ny and ny mean, reverence and to revere, as well as fear, and to 
fear, or to dread, so the Greek ev\aBera, evraBjc, eviaPBEw, are some- 
times employed to designate the idea of reverence, and consequently 
(like mm ANY) of piety, devotion, religion. But the usual classic 


soe COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 8. 363 


sense of the word is to be preferred, in our verse, viz. fear, or object of 
dread, like the Hebrew RVD, Eicaxotw and éraxotw are frequently 
employed, in the Septuagint, in order to translate the Hebrew verb Pe 

and my very often means, to answer a prayer or request. To answer 

a request for deliverance, is to deliver or save from. This sense the verb 
my sometimes has; e. ¢. Ps. xxii. 22, from the horns of the wild bull 
IY, deliver me, (the preceding parallelism has WT save me ;) 
Job xxxv. 12, from the has of the wicked Ty" Nx, he [God] will 
_ not deliver. So Ps. cxviil. 5 et al. We may render ius Cale then, 

was delivered. Still, this is not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as he 
was heard in respect to the object of fear, gives the same sense, viz. 
from that which he dreaded Christ was delivered, or, his entreaties were 
listened to in respect to that which he dreaded. ’Avd, like the Hebrew 
V2, 13, is sometimes employed in the sense of, quod attinet ad, so that it 
accords with the general meaning of wept; e. g. in Acts xvii. 2. See 
Schleusner Lex. ard, No. 18, Gesen. Heb. Lex. J12 No. 4. If eicaxous- 
Sete be translated (as the Hebrew May in some cases should be ren- 
dered,) was delivered, then the usual sense of ad is perfectly appro- 
priate ; and, on this account, I have thought such a translation to be 
preferable, and made it accordingly. See Excursus XI. 

Ver. 8. Kairep @y vidg .... traxojy, although a Son, yet did he learn 
obedience by suffering ; 1. e. although he was God’s only and well- 
beloved Son, a personage of such exalted dignity, yet was he put to the 
trial of obedience in the midst of sufferings ; or, he was subjected to 
learn experimentally, what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings. So 
I interpret this somewhat difficult and much agitated verse. I cannot 
suppose the object of the writer to be, an assertion that Christ did not 
understand the nature of obedience or recognize the duty of it, before 
he suffered ; but that it pleased God to exalt him to glory, in the way 
of obedience rendered by suffering as well as by action. Such is the 
sentiment in ch. ii. 10. Of such an obedience our epistle speaks, in 
ch. x. 7, quoted from Ps. xl. 8, 9; and such is that mentioned in Phil. 
ii. 8, obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, which, in the 
sequel, is asserted to be the special ground of Christ’s exaltation to the 
throne of the universe. To mention such an obedience here, is altoge- 
ther apposite to the apostle’s design ; which was, fully to impress on the 
Hebrews the sympathizing and compassionate nature of the Saviour, and 
his fitness to succour those who were under sufferings and trials ; com- 
pare ii. 17,18; iv. 15, 16. The same is implied in ch. v. 1, 2. 


364 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 9, 10, LI. 


Ver. 9. Kai redeweic «2... aiwviov, then, when exalted to glory, he 
became the author of eternal salvation [he procured salvation] for all 
those who obey him. For redew Sete, see on ch. 11. 10, where is the same 
sentiment as here; and where Christ, who is here said to be airtoe owrn- 
piac, is called roy dpynyoy rij¢ owrnpiac, which has the same meaning. 
As to ch. il. 10, the whole of the preceding context there, is occupied 
with showing the exaltation or kingly dignity of Christ ; and to this state 
of exaltation reXecwSele undoubtedly refers here. There is also conveyed, 
by ver. 9, an intimation that Christ’s very sufferings stand in an intimate 
and necessary connexion with his exaltation to the kingly office, so that 
he is a kingly priest, as Melchisedek also was. There is evidently no 
necessity, however, of including ver. 7—9 in parenthesis, as many com- 
mentators have done; nor of regarding them as an interruption of the 
apostle’s discourse. The fact is, as we have seen in the illustration 
above, that a new topic or head is introduced by them, which is broken 
off in the manner of Paul, in ch. v. 1], and resumed in ch. vu. 26. 

Ver. 10. Hpooayopevdele ... . Medyudedéx, being called by God, [as I 
was saying, | a high priest, after the order of Melchisedek. Woocayopetw 
means, to name, to salute by calling a name, to greet. The meaning is, 
that Christ is greeted, or saluted, by the name or appellation, dpytepeve, 
17D. In the Septuagint, Ps. cix. 4, [cx. 4,] and above, in ver. 6, it 
is tepedve. But the Hebrew Ww means either cpyzepede, or tepeve; see 
Ley. iv. 16, et al.; so that the apostle might render the original, in 
Ps. ex. 4, by either Greek word, as he has done. 

Having thus introduced the subject of Christ’s exaltation as priest, the 
nature of the comparison introduced, viz. the comparison of Christ’s 
priesthood with that of Melchisedek, occasions the writer to stop short, 
in order to comment on this, and also to give utterance, in the first 
place, to his emotions of concern for those whom he addressed. The 
difficulty and obscurity of the subject which he is about to discuss, are, 
in his view, occasioned principally by the low state of religious knowledge 
in those whom he addresses. This he tells them very plainly, in order 
to reprove them for the little progress they had made in Christian know- 
ledge, as well as to guard them against objecting to what he is about 
to advance. 

Ver. 11. THept-ob wodve typiy 6 NOyoc «24+ Eyer, respecting whom we 
have much to say. So Lysias in Panoe. rodve ay ety proe NOyog OinyEioSat. 
Dionys. Harlicar. I. 23. zepi dy rove ay ein NOyoe. 

Kai dvcepphvevroc, and difficult of explanation, from dve and Eppnvetw 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 12. 865 


Critics frequently couple the word déyew, which follows, with duoepji)- 
vevroc; but the example above, from Lysias, shows that it should be 
associated with the former clause of the verse. The grammatical con- 
struction, or arrangement, I take to be this: epi ov [7d] Néyerv, rodde 
hpty, [ein] 6 Aéyoc; the infinitive Néyewy being used as a noun in the 
nominative, or as the subject of the sentence, according to a common 
usage. 

"Exel vwSpot yeydvare raic axoaic, since ye are dull of apprehension, 
or, slow in understanding. Tate axoaic, lit. in hearing. But axovw, to 
hear, means often to perceive, to understand, like the Hebrew yw. 

The reason why they are so dull in respect to understanding religious 
subjects, is next suggested by the writer; doubtless with the design 
of reproving those whom he addresses, for their neglect to make a 
suitable progress in Christian knowledge. 

Ver. 12. Kai yap dgeihovrec.... xpdvorv, for when ye ought to be even 
capable of teaching, as rt respects the length of time, viz. since ye made 
a profession of the Christian religion. The writer, doubtless, does not 
mean to say, that the whole church whom he addressed should actually 
be teachers; but that they ought to have made advances enough in the 
knowledge of spiritual subjects, to be able to teach in them; or, in other 
words, ought to have made very considerable acquisitions in religious 
knowledge, considering the length of time that had elapsed since they 
professed to be Christians, Aca, after, so before words signifying time ; 
e.g. Matt. xxvi. 61. Mark xiv. 58; i. 1. Acts xxiv. 17. Gal. ii. 1. 

Tlddw xpelay exere . . . . Tov Oeov, ye have need that one should 
again teach you the very rudiments of divine doctrine. Xrovyeia, ele- 
ments or rudiments of any science. roxeia rije apyiic, the rudiments of 
the beginning, is the same as Horace’s elementa prima, Serm. I. The 
idea is expressed by the phrase, very rudiments or first elements, ele- 
menta prima. Toy Noyiwy rov Ocov, I should refer particularly to those 
parts of the Old Testament, which have a respect to the Christian 
religion, and especially to the Messiah, were it not that in ch. vi. l—3, 
the writer has shown that he means the rudiments of Christzan doctrine 
in its appropriate sense. Aoyiwy Oeov then must mean here, doctrines or 
communications of God, viz. which God has revealed under the gospel, 
i. e. divine doctrine, or doctrines of divine original. 

This feeble, imperfect, spiritual condition, the writer now descril es 
by a very appropriate figure, taken from the aliment and condition of 
young children. 


366 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 13, 14. 


Kal yeyovare xpelay . . . . rpopijc, and ye have become [like] those 
who need milk, and not solid nourishment ; literally, ye have become 
those who need, &c. But the particle of similitude is, in such cases, | 
very often omitted in the Old Testament and in the New. The meaning 
is, ‘‘ Ye have in spiritual things become as children are in regard to 
food, i. e. unable to bear or to digest any thing but the most light 
and simple nourishment; ye cannot understand or bear the higher and 
more difficult doctrines, ye cannot properly apprehend them when they 
are proposed to you.’” Tpopi}, noureshment, any kind of food, not meat 
only. 

Ver. 13. Ilae yap 6 peréxwv .. . « viytwoc yap éoTL, NOW, every one 
who partakes of milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of salvation, for he is 
a child, "Amewoc, inexpers, ineptus ad aliquam rem, that is, one who 
has not that skill or experience in regard to any thing, which is requisite 
to a due apprehension and consideration of it. The sentiment is, “ As 
he, who must be fed with milk, is yet a child; so ye, who can bear only 
the lighter kinds of spiritual nourishment, are yet vijrwwx in religion.” 
Aédyov daocbync, doctrine of salvation, i. e. the gospel, or the Christian 
religion. The Hebrew pT3 and MTs are often equivalent to DDWId, 
statute, ordinance, rule of life. It is evident, here, that cu«aooivye 
means, what the Christian religion sanctions or ordains. See Schleusner 
on Sccaoctyvn, No. 9. Or, ducatoodvn may be here rendered, grace, 
favour, i. e. the gospel which reveals grace, favour, pardon. 

Ver. 14. Tedetwy dé éorev fy orepec rpogy, but solid food rs for those of 
mature age. Tedelwy, adult, grown up, having attained completion in a 
physical respect. See on ch. ii. 10; v. 9. 

Tor dua viv tw... « Kaxov, who possess organs of sense, exercised 
by practice, for distinguishiug hetween good and evil. The metaphor 
here, as in the preceding verse, is of a mixed nature; the latter clause 
being appropriate to moral réAewr. The meaning is, that solid food, 
which is an image of the more difficult part of gospel doctrines, is appro- 
priate to full-grown men, i. e. to Christians who have come to a maturer 
state, and who by experience in matters of religion, and frequent reflec- 
tion upon them, have made advances so as to be able to distinguish 
what is right and what is wrong respecting them. ’AcoSyrijpia here 
means the internal senses of Christians, their moral powers or faculties 
of distinguishing and judging; although the term itself, in its Literal 
acceptation, designates the external organs of sense. Atdkptoww Kadov 


; kal xaxov is borrowed from the Hebrew yy ba} a) Big See Gen. i. 17; 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 1. 367 


Weut. i. 39; and compare Isa. vii. 15,16; Jonah iv. 11. It is applied, 
by the Hebrews, to designate a more mature and advanced state of 
knowledge in respect to any thing, and not simply to the mere perceiy- 
ing of a difference between the moral nature of good and evil. So in 
the verse before us; we cannot suppose the writer to mean, that the 
Hebrews were not yet réAewse in such a sense as to be able to discern 
the difference between good and evil, simply considered. He evidently 
means, that they were in such a state, as not readily to discern what 
was true or false, in respect to the more difficult doctrines of the Chris- 
tian religion; they were not as yet capable of rightly understanding 
and estimating them. From this state, it was their duty speedily to 
extricate themselves ; as the writer proceeds to exhort them to do. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 1. Aco agévrec .. ++ pepmpeSa, wherefore, leaving the first rudi- 
ments of Christian doctrine, let us proceed to a more advanced state 
[of knowledge.] Aco I interpret here in the usual sense. I understand 
the reasoning of the apostle thus : ‘‘ Wherefore, i. e. since réevoe only 
are capable of orepea zp0d1), solid food, viz. of receiving, digesting, and 
duly appropriating the higher and more difficult doctrines of Christi- 
anity, and since ye are yet but v4, although ye ought to be advanced 
in Christian knowledge, if regard be had to the long time that ye have 
professed the Christian religion, ch. v. 12—14; 0.0, therefore, it 
becomes you to quit this state of immaturity, this »nymdrnra, and 
advance to a maturer state, to a vedevd7n7a.”” The reasoning is plain, 
when thus understood, and the connexion palpable. The word adéyre¢ 
is capable of the signification given to it by this method of interpreta- 
tion. ’Aginpe signifies, among other things, relinguo, abeo, discedo, 
relinquo post me, §c. and is frequently applied to quitting a thing, for 
the sake of going to some different place, or of engaging in a different 
employment; e. g. Matt. iv. 20, 22; v. 24; xviii. 12; xix. 27; John 
x. 12. The meaning here, I take to be this, ‘‘ Quitting the mere initial 
stage of pupillage, advance forward to a maturer state of instruction 
and knowledge ;”’ or, ‘‘ Make such advances, that it shall be unneces- 
sary to repeat elementary instruction in the principles of Christianity,” 
ver. 2,3 


3868 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vi. 1. 


Others (and most commentators) understand apévrec here in the sense 
of omitting, and apply it to the apostle in the following way: ‘* Omit- 
ting now to insist on the first elements of Christian doctrine, let me 
proceed to the consideration of the more difficult principles of religion, 
not discussing, at present, the subject of repentance, baptism, &c.; 
which I will do, (i.e. I will discuss the higher principles,) if God per- 
mit ;”” or, (as some interpret this last clause,) ‘* Which [first rudiments | 
I shall discuss by and by, Deo volente ;” referring kat rovro motnooper 
to the discussion of the doctrines just mentioned. 

But a difficulty in admitting this interpretation, lies in the context 
which follows. According to the method of interpretation just proposed, 
the reasoning would be thus: ‘ Omitting now all discussion respecting 
the first rudiments of Christian doctrine, I will proceed to disclose the 
more abstruse principles of the same; for it 2s impossible (advvarov 
yap) that apostates should be again renewed to repentance.” Is there 
any coherence in such reasoning? If there be, it is, at least, very dif- 
ficult to see it. But does the other method proposed, relieve the diffi- 
culty? Let us see. It stands thus: ‘Christian brethren, who ought 
by this time to be qualified, by your knowledge of religion, to become 
teachers of it, quit the state of ignorance in which you are. Let it not 
be necessary any more to teach you the first rudiments of Christian doc- 
trine. Such progress we must make, Deo volente. Stationary we can- 
not remain; we must either advance or recede. But guard well, I 
beseech you, against receding ; advvaroy yap, &c. ver. 4—8.” 

Two things, at least, must be admitted. The one, that the apostle 
taxes them with negligence in regard to an enlarged acquaintance with 
religious doctrine ; the other, that he cautions them against the awful 
consequences of apostacy. Now, does it not follow, that he considers 
the state of comparative ignorance in which they were, as exposing them 
in a peculiar manner to apostatize ; and consequently, that he connects 
the danger of apostacy with reproof in regard to religious ignorance, so 
as to rouse them to more effort, in order to acquire a better acquaintance 
with the grounds and principles of Christianity? And is not all this 
founded in the nature of things, as they have always existed? Are not 
the ignorant most easily led away by impostors and heretical teachers ? 
The men who have prohibited the use of the Scriptures by the people at 
large, and who labour to suppress the diffusion of general knowledge, 
in order that the mass of the people may be kept in ignorance, and so 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 2. 369 


be moulded by them at their will, have well understood the principle to 
which I have alluded. 

The caution of the apostle, then, I consider as amounting to this : 
“Guard well against ignorance of Christian doctrines, for lapse is easy 
to the ignorant, and recovery exceedingly difficult, or impossible.” I 
cannot, therefore, follow the usual method of expounding either the 
verse before us, or the subsequent context. 

Pepweda, the middle voice of gépw, of signifies to go, to come, to 
travel, to move in any manner, or in any direction. Here pepwpeca 
means, to advance, to go forward. 

My) wader Sepédcoy Kar apaddopevoe peravoiac, not again laying the 
Soundation with respect to repentance ; not again commencing, (as we 
once have done,) with the first elements of Christian doctrine, e. ¢. the 
subject of repentance, &c. Meravoiac here means the subject or doc- 
trine of perdvoua, see ver. 2. The genitive Barripév Ccidayfe, desig- 
nates, in this case, the relation signified by zn respect to; which is a 
very common use of the genitive; see Buttmann’s Grammar, § 119.6. 1. 
It is plain, that the writer does not here speak of repentance as an act, 
but as a doctrine or subject of consideration ; and so of the other sub- 
jects mentioned in the sequel. That repentance was inculcated as an 
initial doctrine and duty of Christianity, may be seen by consulting the 
following passages, Matt. iv. 17. Mark i. 15. Acts ii. 38. xvii. 30, and 
others of the same kind. 

"Ard vexpov Epywr, from deadly works, i. e. in respect to works which 
cause death, misery, or condemnation. Compare ch. ix. 14, and row 
Savdrov in ch. ii. 14. Or vexpde may be interpreted as meaning sinful, 
mcious< as im Eph. vy. 14. ‘Rom: vi. 13:5 ch. xi. 15.) Reyouei? it 
is not important which of these senses is adopted. The one implies 
the other. 

Kat riorewe éxi Ocdy, faith in God, or, in respect to him, That this 
is an elementary principle of Christianity, is evident from the nature of 
the thing, as well as from Mark xi. 22. John xiv. 1. Heb. xi. 6, and 
many other passages of the New Testament. Here, however, by faith 
in God, is to be understood, faith in the declarations which God has 
made to men respecting his Son, the Saviour of the world. Compare 
Acts xvi. 31. 

Ver. 2. Barrispay owWaxiic, the doctrine of baptisms. Here the word 
dvdaxije is supplied by the writer; and I regard it as amplied before the 
preceding peravoiac and risrewc. Some interpreters, however, point the 

2B 


370 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 2. 


text thus, Barrispar, dWaxije, i.e. of baptisms, of [elementary] instruc- 
tion ; which is too improbable to need discussion. The only difficulty 
lies in the plural word Bazzicpéy ; since we know of only one Christian 
baptism. Hence, Schleusner, and many other critics, refer Bamriopoec 
only to the ceremonial washings of the Jews, in all the cases where it 
occurs; and they suppose that Barricpa is the only appropriate term, 
with which the rite of Christian baptism is designated. But what has 
the apostle to do here with Jewish ceremonial rites, as the first elements 
of Christian doctrine? Plainly nothing; so that this exegesis cannot 
be admitted. 

Another and better explanation is, that Gamricpéy does not differ, in 
any important respect, from Barriopod. So, in John i. 13, stands the 
plural aipdrwy; in 1 Cor. vil. 2, rae ropvetac; in 2 Cor. vil. 3, kapdéace ; 
all instead of the singular, in each case. See many like cases, in Glass. 
Philol. Sac. I. p. 62, seq. So the plural number of verbs is often 
employed when the subject is indefinite, and of the singular number ; 
e.g. Mark v. 35; compare Luke vill. 49. Compare also Heb. ix. 17, 
éi vexpoic. Storr supposes Barrispoy to be used here in a kind of dis- 
tributive sense, as the Hebrew plural often is; so that the sentiment is, 
‘‘ the doctrine that every believer must be baptized.” But however this 
may be, it is clear that no stress can be laid upon the use of the plural, 
as there are so many examples where it means no more than the singular 
would do. Moreover, the Syriac version has the singular here. In regard 
to the doctrine of baptism being an elementary doctrine, there can be 
no difficulty. The rite itself was an inztiatory one, for all who pro- 
fessed to be Christians. 

"EriBécewe te xepov imposition of hands. It is a very palpable mis- 
take, into which many Christians fall, who are not well acquainted with 
the rites of the primitive church, to suppose that imposition of hands 
was practised only in the case of ordaining persons to the holy ministry. 
It was common for the apostles to bestow extraordinary gifts upon con- 
verts to Christianity, immediately after their baptism, by the imposition 
of hands. See Acts ii. 38, AjWeoOe ry Cwpsay Tov ayiov mvEevpmaroc; 
compare Acts viii. 14—19; xix. 1—6. Hence, ériSécewe yepoy is 
reckoned as one of the things, the knowledge of which was communicated 
at an early stage of the Christian profession. 

Avaoracewe re vexpov, of the resurrection of the dead. Storr, and 
others, understand this here only of the resurrection of the pious. But 
I apprehend the sense is general; as in John y. 28, 29. Compare Matt. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 3, 4. 371 


xxil. 31; Acts iv. 2. A general resurrection of the bodies of men, is a 
doctrine which, if not left undecided by the Old Testament, is at least 
left in obscurity. The Jews, of the apostle’s time, were divided in their 
opinion respecting it. Hence, it was insisted on with great earnestness 
by Christian preachers, as belonging to the peculiar and elementary 
doctrines of Christianity. It was connected, by them, with the account 
which every man is to render of himself to God; and such an accounta- 
bility is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. 

Kai xpiparocg aiwviov, and of a judgment, the consequences of which 
are eternal. In such a sense is A’rpware said to be aiwvia, in ch. ix. 12; 
and dvaShen to be aiwvia in ch. xiii. 20. Both the resurrection and the 
judgment, in this case, pertain to the righteous and to the wicked. It is 
the general doctrine of a resurrection, and of responsibility and reward 
at the tribunal of God, which the writer means to describe. These 
doctrines were among those that were first preached, when men were to 
be instructed in the elements of Christianity. Sée Acts xvii. 31; x. 42. 
Rom. ii. 16. Matt. xxv. 31, seq. In regard to the eternal consequences 
of judgment, see Matt. xxv. 46. John v. 29. Dan. xii. 2. 2 Thess. i. 9. 
Matt. xviii. 8. Mark ix. 45, 48. 

Ver. 3. Kat rovro....6Oed¢, and this will we do, if God permit ; 
i. e. we will advance in Christian knowledge, go on, ét reNecdrnra, should 
God be pleased to spare our lives, and afford us continued opportunity 
of so doing. The frequency with which the writer of this epistle uses the 
first person plural (kotvwoic) is worthy of remark. It gives a more 
delicate cast to his reproofs, and to his comminations. 

Ver. 4. ’Acuvaroy yap, for it is impossible, i. e. we will go forward in 
the attainment of what belongs to Christians, and not recede; for it is 
wmpossible, viz. that those who recede and apostatize, should be recovered 
from their lapse; as the sequel ayers. But does adivaroy here imply 
absolute impossibility, or only great difficulty’ The latter, Storr and 
many other critics reply. To vindicate this sentiment, they appeal to 
Mark x. 25. 27, and to the parallel passages in the other evangelists. But 
this appeal is not satisfactory. In Matt. xix. 23, seq.; Mark x. 23, seq. ; 
and Luke xviii. 24, seq., (all relating to the same occurrence,) Jesus is 
represented as saying, “‘ r@¢ dvoxddwe, shall a rich man enter into the 
kingdom of God!” He then adds, ‘‘It is easier for a camel to go 
through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the king- 
dom of God!’ His disciples are astonished at this, and ask, “ How is 
it possible that any one [any rich man] can be saved?” ric dpa dvvara 

2B2 


372 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vi. 4. 


owSihvac; Jesus replies, ‘‘ With men this is advvaroy; but with God all 
things are dvvara.” Surely he does not mean merely, that this is very 
difficult with men, but, that it is beyond thetr power to accomplish it. 

The other examples of the use of this word in the New Testament, are 
not at all adapted to favour the exegesis of Storr; e. g. Acts xiv. 8. 
Rom. viii. 3; xv. 1, where the word, however, is figuratively employed. 
But, if the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is to be compared with 
himself, then is it quite certain, that advvaroy will not bear the qualified 
sense which Storr puts upon it. Compare Heb. vi. 18; x. 4; xi. 6; 
all clear cases of absolute impossibility, not of mere relative difficulty. 
These are all the instances in which the word is found in the New 
Testament. Nor will a resort to classic usage any better defend the 
interpretation of Storr. 

Besides, if it could be shown, that such a qualified sense were agree- 
able to the wsus loqguendi in some cases, and therefore posszble, a com- 
parison with Heb. x. 26—31, would destroy all appearance of probability 
that such a sense is to be admitted here. If there ‘‘ remains no more 
sacrifice for sin,” (Heb. x. 26,) for those who have apostatized, then is 
there no hope of salvation for them; as is clear from Heb. x. 28—31. 
Moreover, to say merely, that it is very difficult to recover the lapsed 
Christians of whom the apostle is going to speak, would be at variance 
with the imagery employed to describe them, and the fate that awaits 
them, in ver. 7,8. For all these reasons, such an explanation of 
advyaroy cannot be admitted. 

Tove dak gwroStvrac, those who have been once enlightened, i. e. 
mstructed in the principles of Christianity. So gwriZw, in John i. 9. 
Eph, ii. 9. Heb. x. 32. In all the other passages of the New Tes- 
tament where this word occurs, it is employed in the sense of shining 
upon, throwing light upon, disclosing. It does not, in itself considered, 
imply saving illumination, but illumination or instruction simply, as to 
the principles of the Christian religion. 

Tevoapevove re rijc Swede Exovpaviov, and have tasted of the heavenly 
gift.  Tevoapévove, tasted, does not mean, extremis labits leviter 
degustare, merely to sip, or simply to apply for once to the palate, so 
as just to perceive the taste of a thing; but it means, the full enjoy- 
ment, perception, or experience of a thing. When the Greek writers 
wish to communicate the former idea, they add yeiAeorv éxporc to the 
phrase; e. g. ‘‘ They are witnesses, of ju yetdeowy akpore yevodpevor 
tic piAogodiag GAG . .  Estadévrec, who have not only tasted with 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 4. 373 


the extreme part of the lips [sipped] philosophy, but . . . feasted 
upon it, Philo. Lib. I. de Monarchia, p. 816. So Chrysostom, téxpore 
rote xeiheow yevoarSa, Hom. on Johan. v. 19. But when a full 
experience or perception of any thing is meant, yevouar is used simply ; 
e. g. of yevoapervor tHe aoeric, Philo de Abraham. Oper. I p. 14. So 
Tov &Savarov yvwoewe yevoarsa, Clem. Rom. I. 38. 

In the New Testament, Savarov yeberSa is, to experience death; e. g. 
Matt. xvi. 28. Mark ix. 1. Luke ix. 27. John viii. 52. Heb. ii. 9. 
Compare also Luke xiv. 24, 1 Pet. ii. 3. So Herod. VI. 5, yeveolac 
éXevSepiac, to experience [to enjoy] freedom. Pindar. Nem, Od. V. 
596, xovwy yeverSat, to undergo toils, Soph. Trach. 1108, dAXww re 
poxSwv pupiwy éyevoduny, I have suffered a thousand other evils. So 
the Hebrew BY Prov. xxxi. 18. Ps. xxxiv. 9, 

But what is the heavenly gift, which they have enjoyed, or the bene- 
fits of which they have experienced? Some have explained it as being 
Christ himself, by comparing it with John iv. 10. But it is doubtful 
whether éwpeay here means Christ. It is more probable, that it means 
benefictum, i. e. the kindness or favour which God bestowed, in vouch- 
safing an opportunity to the Samaritan woman, to converse with the 
Saviour. 

Others have represented dwpeay as being the extraordinary gift of 
the Holy Spirit to Christians, in the primitive age of Christianity; and 
they have compared the phrase here with rvevpa a@ywov in Acts viii. 19, 
which means the special gifts of the Spirit, and which in ch. viil. 20, is 
called rijv dwpeay rod Oeov. But the objection to this is, that the sequel 
of our text contains a repetition of the same idea, once at least, if not 
twice. 

For these reasons, I prefer the interpretation which makes dwpece 
éxovpaviov the same here as kAyjoewe éxovpavioy in ch. ili. 1, i.e. the 
proffered blessings or privileges of the gospel. The sense is then plain 
and facile: (1.) They had been instructed in the elementary doctrines 
of Christianity, @wricSévrac. (2.) They had enjoyed the privileges or 
benefits of living under a Christian dispensation, i.e. the means of 
grace which the gospel afforded ; and this is truly dwpea érovpavtoc. I 
much prefer this mode of interpretation to any of the others. 

Kai peréxoue yernSévrac rvevparoc ayiov, and have been made partakers 
of the Holy Spirit. understand this of the extraordinary gifts and 
influences of the Spirit, which the primitive Christians enjoyed, and which 
were often bestowed by the imposition of the apostles’ hands. See 


¢ 


374 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vi. 5. 


above, on émidécewe re ye—pHy, in ver 2. TevnSévrac is a more unusual 
word, in such a connexion as the present, than yevopévove ; but still, 
there are sufficient examples to show, that occasional custom sanctions 
the use of it m such cases as the present. 

Ver 5. Kat caddy yevoapévove Ocov pijpa, and have tasted the good 
word of God, i.e. enjoyed the consolations administered, or the hopes 
excited, by the divine promises which the gospel proffers. Tevoapévouc 
(as above) experienced, known by experience. ‘Above, it is construed 
with the genitive after it; here with the accusative ; both according to 
Greek usage, although the former method predominates. 

Kandy .. . . Ocod pijpa, the divine promise, i.e. of good. So 2 727 
means, in Jer. xxix. 10; xxxiil. 14; also in Joshua xxi. 45; xxiii. 14, 15, 
in which last verse it is opposed to Y TIT, promise of evil, commina- 
tion. Kadov papa means, the word which respects good, i.e. the pro- 
mise of blessings or favours. So Paul calls the gospel, érayyediay Oevd 
év Xptor@, 2 Cor.j. 20. I prefer this simple method of explanation to 
all others. The gradation, moreover, of the discourse is more percepti- 
ble, than if pia be here construed as indicating merely cvayyédtor, 
which would make the whole clause to signify nearly, if not exactly, the 
same as ézaté gwrisSévrac. 

Avvapece re péddovroc ai@voc, and the miracles of the gospel dispensa- 
tion. The sense here given to duvdpece is frequently in the New Testa- 
ment; see Matt. vii. 22; xi. 20, 21,23; xiii. 58. Mark vi. 5. Lukex. 13. 
Acts ii. 22, al. I apprehend that the writer refers here to those extra- 
ordinary, miraculous occurrences, which took place in confirmation of 
Christianity; viz. such as are adverted to in ch. il, 4. The phrase, 
duvdpecc péddovroc aidvoc, differs from the preceding perdyove .... 
rvevpuroc «yiov, in this respect, viz. that the latter relates to the special 
gifts and influences of the Spirit, bestowed é general upon the primitive 
disciples; while the former refers particularly to miracles of the heghest 
order, which afforded peculiar proof that Christianity was a divine 
religion, and which are appealed to as such in ch. i. 4. In regard to 
pédovToe aidvoc, See ON oikoupévny peddrovoay, in ch, it. 5. 

Thus interpreted, there is a regular gradation in the whole passage. 
(1.) They had been taught the principles or doctrines of Christianity. 
(2.) They had enjoyed the privileges or means of grace, which the new 
religion afforded. (3.) They had experienced, in general, various 
gifts and graces bestowed by the Spirit. (4.) They had cherished the 
hopes which the promises of the gospel inspire. (5.‘ They had witnessed, 


. 


CCMMENTARY ON HER. Vi. 6. 37% 


(and perhaps he means to say, that some of them had experienced ,) those 
special miraculous powers, by which the gospel was fully shown to be a 
religion from God; compare ch. ii. 4. Thus they had the JSullest evidence, 
internal and external, of the divine origin and nature of the Christian 
religion. Consequently, if they apostatized from it, there remained no 
hope of their recovery. 

Ver. 6. Kai rapazeodyrac, and have fallen away, have made defection 
Jrom, viz. from the gospel, or from all the experience and evidence 
before mentioned ; tapaziz7w governing the genitive. The connexion 
stands thus, ’Advvaroy yup rove &raé gwriSévrac.... yevoapévove TE 

Kat -yernSévrac.... Kal yevoapévove .... kal Taparecdvrac. In 
compound verbs, rapa is often taken to denote deterioration; e. g. 
napadpwvey, desipere ; wapadoyilecIar, male ratiocinari; tapapySpizery, 
deformare ; so waparinrecy, deficere ab. The falling away or defection, 
which is here meant, is a renunciation of Christianity, and a return to 
Judaism. This implies, of course, a return to a state of active enmity 
and hostility to the Christian religion. 

Tahu dvacawigery cic peravovay, again to be renewed by repentance. 
Madu belongs to dvaxawiZey, not only by common usage in respect to 
the position of the adverb when placed immediately before the verb 
which it qualifies, but the sense here requires it. The writer doés not 
mean to say, ‘ Those who have a second time fallen away; but, that 
those who fall away cannot be again, or a second time, brought to repent- 
ance. Drusius, Cappell, Abresch, and others, take dvaxauwiZew here in 
the passive sense, as equivalent to avaxawiZeoSac; and construe it, in 
connexion with what precedes, in this manner ; “ It is impossible for those 
who have been once instructed, &c. to be renewed to repentance.” The 
simple grammatical construction of dvaxawiZew, as it now stands in the 
active voice, is thus; “ It is impossible again to renew by repentance 
those who have been once instructed,” &c. If the latter method of con- 
strueing the sentence be adopted, who is the subject of the verb avaxa- 
view? i. e. who is the agent that is to produce this renovation? Is it 
God, i. e. the Holy Spirit, or Paul, or others? Brettschneider (Lex.) 
understands the word in an active sense, and supposes that Christian 
teachers are the agents to whom the writer refers. Storr renders it inde- 


finitely, “‘ Man kann unmdglich wieder bessern,” one cannot possibly 
produce another amendment. But, instead of saying one cannot, in this 


case, I should prefer understanding avaxawiZew in an impersonal sense, 


376 COMMENTARY ON HEB, VI. 6. 


and rendering it in English by our passive verb: since many verbs used 
impersonally convey a passive sense. See Heb. Gram. § 190. 2. note 1, 2. 

There is still another construction which may be made of the passage, 
and which is a very common Greek one; viz. tadw avaxawviZety rove arak 


pwriSévrac .... kal mapatecdvrac, advvaroy, to renew, or, the renewal 
of, persons once instructed ... . and who have apostatized, is imposszble. 


In this case, the infinitive dvaxaviZery is used as a noun, and makes the 
subject of the proposition. This would afford the same sense as that 
which was last suggested above. 

Eig perdvoray, by repentance ; so Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others. 
Eic, with the accusative, often signifies the instrument or means. If it 
be construed otherwise, (as in the version which I have made,) the sense 
will be “ To renew them, so that they will repent.”” See Excursus XII. 

’"Avaoraupovytac Eavtoic Toy vidy Tov Oeov, since they have crucified for 
themselves the Son of God. Chrysostom construes avacraupovrTag as 
meaning 7da\w oravpovyrac; and so our English translators, and many 
others. But this is not conformable to common Greek usage. ’Ava, in 
composition, merely augments the ihtensity of a verb, if, indeed, it pro- 
duces any effect upon its signification; for oftentimes it does not, e. g. 
avacnrety, avaxpivew, avadewpety, avarAnpde, &c. That the word in 
question is to be figuratively taken, is plain from the nature of the case. 
Actual physical crucifixion is out of the question. It means, then, éo 
treat with the greatest ignominy and contempt. 

But what does éavroic mean? It is susceptible of two interpretations. 
(1.) As dativus incommodi, i. e. to their own hurt, shame, &c. So Storr. 
See Winer’s New. Test. Gram. § 24.2.6. (2.) It may be constructed 
as Hebrew pronouns in the dative frequently are, viz. as pleonastic ; e. g. 
1°72, go for thyself, i. e. go; a Dd, he has fled for himself, i. e. he 
has fled; Heb. Gram. § 210. 3. Lincline to the latter mode of expla- 
nation. Perhaps the shade of idea is, ‘‘ Crucifying, so far as they are 
concerned,” or, ‘¢ Themselves being concerned in the transaction of 
crucifying.” 

Kai rapaderyparizovrac, and exposed him to public shame ; compare 
Matt. i. 19. By renouncing their adherence to Christianity, they would 
openly declare their belief that Christ was only an impostor, and, of 
course, that he suffered justly as a malefactor. By returning again to 
Judaism, they would approve of what the Jews had done; and thus they 
would, as it were, crucify Christ, and expose him to be treated by unbe- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 7. 377 


lievers with scorn and contumely. Every one knows, that an apostate 
from a good cause gives new occasion, by the act of apostacy, for the 
enemies of that cause to utter all the malignity of their hearts against it. 
In this sense, apostates expose the Saviour to public infamy, when they 
renounce all regard for him, and join with those who view him as an 
impostor and a malefactor. 

The two participles, dvasaupotyrac .... Kai mapaderyparilovrac, I 
regard, as grammatically connected with the preceding ones thus: rove 
amaé pwriolévrac ean cKO TapaTEecovTag 3.016¢ dyvasavupourvrac eta telen KOLL 
maupaceryparizoyrac ; the two latter words being in apposition with the 
preceding participles, and added for the sake of giving intensity to the 
whole description. On this account, cai is omitted before avasavpovvrac. 

Ver. 7. Tip yap .... verdov, now the earth, which drinketh in the rain 
that frequently comes upon it. 7 is used for land cultivated or uncul- 
tivated. Here it designates the former, as is evident from the sequel of 
the sentence. The image of the earth being thirsty, and drinking in 
the showers, is common in many languages. 

Kai rikrovoa Pordyny, and produceth fruits. Tixrovoa is often 
applied, by classical writers, to the production of fruits. Borayny, like 
the Hebrew AWY, means, any kind of grain, any produce of vegetation, 
which is fitted for the service of man. But this use is Hebraistic. By 
classic usage, (orayn means, herbage, or vegetation, not including 
bread-corn. 

"EvuSeroy éxetvoe Oi Od yewpyeirar, useful to those on account of whom 
it is cultivated. ”EvSerov means, in its primary sense, well situated, 
well located; e. g. it is applied to a convenient harbour for ships, &c. 
Useful, appropriate, &c. are secondary meanings, which the word 
frequently has. Ai vve, on account of whom. That this is the usual 
signification of dv with the accusative, all will acknowledge ; and as the 
sense demands no departure here from the usual construction, it is better 
to retain it, than to translate by whom. 

Meradapdvec evoyiac ard Tov Ocod, literally, recetveth blessings from 
God. But what is the meaning of this? Is it, that the earth is, when 
thus fruitful, contemplated with satisfaction or complacency by its 
Creator? Or, does it mean, ‘“‘ The earth which thus produces useful 
fruits, is rendered still more fruitful by Divine beneficence?” The latter 
seems better to accord with the Hebrew idiom. E.g. when Jacob 
approaches Isaac, clad in Esau’s perfumed garments, Isaac says, The 
odour of mu son, is like the odour af a field which God has blessed, 


378 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 8. 


i.e. of a fruitful field, with blossoming herbage. So, on the contrary 
the curse of the earth, in Gen. iii. 17, is explained in ver. 18, by adding, 
‘Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee.” In Mark xi. 14, 
our Saviour says of the barren fig-tree, ‘‘ Let no one ever henceforth eat 
any fruit of thee ;” to which Peter afterwards alluding, says, ‘‘ Lo! the 
fig-tree which thou didst curse,” Mark xi. 21. In 2 Cor. ix. 6, Paul 
says, ‘‘ He who soweth, é7’ evdAoylatc, bountifully, shall reap, éx’ ebroyiace, 
bountifully.”’ Agreeably to this idiom, the phrase in question might be 
explained, is rendered still more fertile, or productive, by God. But, 
although most commentators of note have adopted such an interpre- 
tation, I hesitate to receive it; and this, because the metaphor thus 
explained does not seem well adapted to the object for which it is used. 
The image of the fruztful earth is designed to signify, ‘‘ Christians who 
bring forth fruits under divine cultivation.” Supposing, then, that such 
Christians are here designated, (as plainly is the case,) does the writer 
mean merely to say, in addition, that they will be rendered still more 
fruitful in good works? Or does he mean to say, that when they thrive 
under the cultivation which they enjoy, they will obtain divine approba- 
tion and complacency? I incline to the latter interpretation, as tending 
more directly to exhibit the object which the apostle has in view. 

Moreover, the antithesis, in ver. 8, presents the image of displeasure, 
of punishment. Consequently, the image of complacency, of reward, is 
presented in ver. 7. I should, then, rather interpret the phrase, receiveth 
blessings from God, as referring to the complacency or approbation with 
which God regards the fruitful earth. The sense is similar to that in 
which he is said, in Gen. 1., to have regarded all the works of his hands, 
and considered them as good. The increased fruitfulness of the earth 
would, indeed, be the consequence of the divine blessing; and may, by 
metonymy, be taken for the blessing itself. But the other method of 
exegesis seems more simple. I might say, perhaps, that it is rendered 
almost certain by ver. 8, where the earth, which brings forth thorns and 
thistles, is considered merely as xardpac éyyve, nigh to a curse, i. e. in 
danger of one. Yet, if commentators have rightly construed, evdoylac, 
in ver. 7, as meaning fructfulness, then kardpa, in ver. 8, must mean 
barrenness. _ But the land is already barren, which produces only thorns 
and briars ; consequently it is not merely nigh to barrenness as a curse to 
come. As then the antithesis of ev\oyiag (viz. kardpa) does not mean 
barrenness, so evAoyiac does not mean fruitfulness. 

Ver. 8. 'Exdépovea dé [sc. » yi] .... éyyus, but the earth, which 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 8. 379 


Sringeth forth thorns and briars, is useless, and near to utter rejection, 
which will end in burning. Kardpa, exsecratio, maledictio, extrema 
atque dirissima devotio. Such barren ground, producing nothing but 
thorns and briars, is not only useless to the owners, but is given up or 
devoted by them to be overrun with fire, and to have all its worthless 
productions consumed. The explanation of this phrase in our lexicons, 
and in most of the commentaries, seems to me plainly incongruous, as I 
have just hinted above. Is not the earth which produces nothing but 
thorns and briars, already barren? How then can this earth be merely 
Kardpac éyyve, i.e. (as they explain it) only near to barrenness? The 
method of interpretation above proposed, avoids this incongruity, and 
adopts a more easy and natural explanation. Such earth is (1.) Use- 
less, addxysoc, deserving reprobation. (2.) An object of execration, or 
nigh to be given up to the flames, which at last will consume all its 
worthless productions ; i. e. when the owner of such barren ground has 
made the experiment long enough to see what its qualities are, (édoxi- 
peece,) and finds it to be barren, then he considers it as add«ipoc, proved 
to be worthless after trial, to be condemned, and determines speedily 
to abandon it (kardpae éyyvc,) and to subject it to the ames. ‘*He ro 
rédoc cic Kkatow, which [xarépa] will end in [will be accomplished or 
completed by] burning. Lic xatow is a Hebraism, corresponding to the 
use of the infinitive nominascens, with the prefix 2; Heb. Gram. sec. 
200. 3. So Isa. xliv. 15, SPI? -.-.-. TM, LXX. ba F «2.4 cic wad- 
cw and it shall be burned. -This mode of interpretation represents the 
execration of barren land, (cardépa,) as ending in cavore ; which agrees 
with fact. 

Others refer je to yi, i. e. the end of which land is burning. But I 
prefer the grammatical antecedent, cardpa. 

Thus construed, the whole affords a very striking image of the condition 
of the Hebrews. ‘“ You,” the writer says, “‘ are enjoying abundant 
means of spiritual improvement. If you act in a manner worthy of 
such privileges, God will approve and bless. But if you disobey the 
cospel, and become wholly unfruitful in respect to Christian graces, then 
you are exposed to final rejection and endless punishment. The doom 
of all apostates is near, and the sequel will be tremendous.’ 

But lest what he had now said might wear the appearance of too much 
severity, and seem to imply a great degree of distrust, or want of confi- 
dence, in respect to those whom he addressed, the writer proceeds to 
show what is the real state of his feelings towards them, and that he 


380 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 9, 10. 


has, out of affection for them, and solicitude for their highest welfare, 
so plainly and fully set before them the danger to which they were 
exposed. 

Ver. 9, TemeiopeBa ce . . « Nadodpev, but we confidently hope for 
better things respecting you, beloved, even those connected with sal- 
vation, although we thus speak. Kpeirrova [1. e. mpayparal I under- 
stand as referring to what had just been said, in which the conduct and 
the doom of apostates had been represented. Tereiopefa xpetrrova 
then means, ‘I confidently hope that you will neither imitate the con- 
duct, nor undergo the doom, of apostates, whose end is tic xavou.” 

"Exopeva cwrnoiac, literally, near to, conjoined with, salvation. The 
fourm of expression appears as if it were designed to correspond with 
the preceding xardpac éyyve; 1. e. as apostates are cardpnce éyyvec, SO 
those who persevere in maintaining the true religion are éyopevoe owrn- 
piac; i.e. their salvation is at hand, their time of deliverance from 
trials, and their season of reward is certain, and will not be long pro- 
tracted. To refer cwrnpiac here merely to the temporal safety of be- 
lieving Hebrews, seems to me very foreign to the object of the writer; 
although some critics of note have done this. 

Ver. 10. Ov yup &&uoe 6 Oedc, for God is not unkind, or, God is 
kind. The apposite of aéduKoc, is cuatoc, which, among other meanings, 
not unfrequently bears that of kind, benevolent, indulgent, merciful ; 
see Matt. i. 19. John xvii. 25. 1-John i. 9. So in Hebrew, p73 
and Nps often mean, kind, kindness, merciful, mercy, &c. ” Adixos 
therefore, may mean unkind, unmerciful, &c.; and this sense of the 
word is most appropriate to the passage. 

Tod epyov tpor, nat rij¢ a@yamng. Many codices, and most editions, 
read rov épyou voy Kai TOU KOTOU Tie yarns. But Griesbach, Knapp, 
and Tittmann, omit rov «édrov; which, however, is defended and re- 
ceived by many critics of good reputation. "Evyov and xéroe are not 
unfrequently joined by the sacred writers ; e. g. 1 Thess. i. 3. Rev ii. 2. 
xiv. 13. But the weight of authority appears to be against the genuine- 
ness of kdzrov here. 

Instead of putting a comma after voy, we may point the phrase 
thus, rov épyou vpe@y Kat Tije cyarne * regarding rij¢ ayamne as sustain- 
ing the place of an adjective in respect to gpyov. Such constructions 
are very common in the sacred writings, i. e. Hendiadys. The transla- 
tion would then be, your benevolent labour ; or (if this be more agree- 
able) your labour and benevolence, which ye have exhibited. But, on 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 1], 12. 581 


the whole, I rather prefer making épyoy refer to the efforts which the 
Hebrew Christians had made, and ayarn to the state of mind toward 
God which they had cherished. I have translated accordingly. 

Eig 76 dvopa abrov, toward him, i. e. toward God, or toward Christ. 
So dvoua is often used for person; e.g. Matt. vi. 9. John xvii. 26. 
Acts x. 43. John xx. 31. Acts iv. 10. So DW name in Hebrew, Exod. 
xxill. 21. 1 Kings viii. 29; iii. 2. Ps. xx. 1, et. al. seepe. 

Acakovijcayreg . . . Ovaxovotvrec, having performed hind offices to 
Christians, and in still performing them.  Acaxovéw signifies, not 
merely to supply the wants of others by pecuniary aid, and by alms, 
but also to assist them in any way by offices of humanity and kindness. 
In this enlarged sense, it seems natural to understand it here. ‘Ayiote, 
Christians, i.e. those who were consecrated to God, or to Christ ; 
compare ch. ii. 1. 

Ver. 11. Thy airy évoeixvucSac orovdjy . . . rédove, may exhibit 
the same diligence, for the sake of a full assurance of hope even to 
the end, i. e. the end of life, or the end of their probationary state ; 
compare ch. ill. 6, Zovdjv, strenuous endeavour, diligent exertion, 
sedulity. The meaning is, ‘‘ I wish you to continue active and benevo- 
lent efforts, such as you have already made, even to the end of your 
Christian course, so as to acquire, or to preserve, the full assurance of 
Christian hope. Anpodgopia and rdnpopopéw are New Testament and 
ecclesiastical words, not employed by the classics. [)npopopia is a 
full burden or lading. If applied toa fruit tree, it would designate 
the fulness or large burden of the fruit; applied to the lading of a 
vessel, it would denote the fulness of the cargo. Phavorinus explains 
mAnpopdpynoov by wAtjpwooy : and, in like manner, wAnpodopiay here does 
not appear to differ from Ajpwpa or tA“pwow. The meaning of the 
writer is, “‘ I desire that your diligence in good works should be per- 
severed in, so that you may continue to cherish a full or confident hope, 
viz. of salvation even to the end of life.” In this way, they would be 
most effectually guarded against apostacy ; for he who, on true grounds, 
cherishes the hope, which the Christian religion encourages, of future 
glory and reward, will hardly be tempted to abandon his religion, and 
exchange it for another. 

Ver. 12. “Iva pup vwSpot yévnoSe, that ye may not be remiss, viz. in 
the discharge of your Christian duties. NwQpoi, tardi, segnes, is ap- 
plied either to body or mind, to external actions or internal concep- 
tions. 


382 COMMENTARY ON HBB. VI. 13. 


Muunrat de rOv Out riorewe . . . ewayyediac, but imitators of those, 
who through faith and patient expectation have entered on the posses- 
sion of promised blessings, i. e. who, after continued belief (aisewe) 
in the existence of those blessings, and patient waiting (jaxpo0upiac) 
until the time of trial is finished for the possession of them, have at 
last realized the object of all their faith and patient expectation. Téorce 
means here, belief in the reality of proffered future blessedness, (see 
Heb. xi. 1, 2, seq.;) and paxpoMvpia the patient waiting for it, amid all 
the troubles and trials of life. Some make a Hendiadys of the two 
words wiorewe and paxpoduvpiac, and render them patient faith. I 
prefer the other method of explanation, as communicating a fuller 
meaning of the apostle’s words. 

KXnpovopovrrwy rac érdyyeNidc. Kdnpovoptw, to acquire, to obtain 
possession of, see on ch. i. 4. ’Ewayyedtac in the plural, in order to 
indicate promises of various kinds, both in respect to temporal and 
spiritual good, the proffered blessings which the ancient worthies did 
at last enjoy. 

How directly it was to the writer’s purpose, to exhort the Hebrews 
to persevering faith, and patient waiting for future blessings proffered 
by the Christian religion, is too evident to need any illustration. Such 
a course would be directly opposite to that abandonment of faith and 
discouragement of mind, which led directly to dpostacy. 

Ver. 13. Tp yap ’AGpady . . . Oedc, when, for example God had 
made a promise to Abraham. Tap, introduced in such a connexion, 
i. e. between the proposal of a doctrine or encouragement, and the rela- 
tion of a fact which is to illustrate it, may well be explained by the 
phrase, for erample; as it conveys the same idea in Greek, which 
these words do in English. 

"Evel kar’ ov0evoc . . . Eavrov, seeing he could swear by no greater, 
he sware by himself. Fixe, could, poterat. Compare Mark xiv. 8. 
Luke vii. 42; xii. 4; xiv. 14; John xiv. 30; Lucian, Dial. Mort. 
21. 2, “Concerning all these things, ciety Gy éxoyn, I could speak.” 
Klian. Var. Hist. I. 25, “I honour thee éznre cai drwe éxw, m whatever 
way, and whenever J can.” 

Kar’ ovdevdc. The genitive, with cara before it, usually follows the 
verb dpurvju, when the object is designated by which a person swears. 
So sop. Fab. 68, h pév od¢ Gpuve xara tig ’Adpodirnc, swore by 
Venus. The accusative with cara, or the dative with év, may also be 


used, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. vi. 14, 15. 383 


"OQuoce kal’ eavrov, Hebrew AVAVI 42, Gen. xxii. 16. The formula 
of an oath of this kind, is found in Num. xiv. 21; ‘IN ‘1. So in Num. 
xiv. 28, m7? ONI ‘8 TT; and in Deut. xxxii. 40, Dbiy) DIN? 13, 
I live for ever. 

Ver. 14. Aéywy } pv . . . tANOUVG oe, saying, I will greatly bless 
thee, and exceedingly multiply thee, i.e. I will give thee a numerous 
offspring. In Gen. xxii. 17, which is quoted here, instead of simply 
wAnOvv@ ce, the Hebrew runs thus, 7) wy DS WD IN, [will greatly 
multiply thy seed; but in Gen. xvil. 2, it is TD sia JAR MTS 
I will multiply thee. The apostle appears to unite both expressions, in 
the quotation before us. The obvious idea of both passages is, “ I will 
give thee a very numerous posterity.” 

Mijy, certo, profecto, i. q. dvtrwe. Ev\oyay edNoyijow . . . tANSbVwY 
mnOvy@. Such a re-duplication is very common in Hebrew, where, for 
the most part, it denotes intensity, Heb. Gram.§ 199. 2. The fre- 
quency of it, in the Hellenistic writers, is Hebraism; but the formula 
itself is not without many examples in the Greek writers. E. g. Lucian. 
Dial. Menel. sub fine, idéy eidov. Xen. Cyrop. V. reifwy tree. VIII. 
trakxovwy imjxovoa. Polyb. evyopevoc ivéaro roic Oeote. Herod. IV. 23, 
Karagevywe Karagevyy. Diod. Sic. tom. I. p. 717, caramémbac exepwe. 
That zntensety is designed in our text, is clear from consulting the con- 
text in Gen, xxii. and xvii. 

Tf1\nOvv6 is found in what is usually called the second future cir- 
cumfiex. But verbs in X, p, v, p, have no other future; see Buttmann, 
Gram. § 86. 8. 

Ver. 15. Kat otrw paxpoOupijoac . . . . émayyediac, and so having 
patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Kai otrw, may be 
construed as equivalent to cal rére, vel kal éreira, and then, and after- 
wards. So ovrw in Acts vil. 8; xx. 11. Rom. xi. 26. Thess. iv. 17. 
Rev. xi. 5. Schneider (Lex.,) otrw, folglich, sonach. Schleusner 
(Lex.,) ovrw, sic tandem tum demum, deinceps etiam. But I rather pre- 
fer the sense of so here, which means, 2m accordance with the promises 
just recited. ’Enéruye tite érayyediac, the noun being in the genitive ; 
for érirvyyavw governs either the genitive or accusative; see Matt. Gr. 
Gram. § 363. 5. 

But what was the promised blessing which he obtained? The same, 
I reply, which the preceding context designates, viz. the blessing of a 
posterity, which should become numerous. When Abraham was called 
by God out of Haran, and the promise of a numerous posterity made to 


Cod 


384 COMMENTARY ON HEB. vi. 16. 17. 


him, he was seventy-five years old, Gen. xii. 1—4. Twenty-four years 
elapsed after this, while he was a sojurner in a strange land without any 
fixed place of abode, before the manner in which this promise would be 
fulfilled was revealed to him, Gen. xvii. 1—16. It was only when he 
was an hundred years old, that the promised blessing of a son, from 
whom should spring a great nation, was obtained, Gen. xxi. 1—5. The 
preternatural birth of such a son, was deemed by Abraham a sufficient 
pledge, on the part of God, that all which he had promised respecting 
him would be fulfilled, Gen. xxi. 15—18. Heb. xi. 8—12, 17—19. 
Rom. iv. 17—22. Other blessings, besides that of a numerous posterity, 
were connected with the birth of Isaac and the faith of Abraham, Gen. 
xxil. latter part of ver. 17, with ver. 18. These blessings Abraham 
did not obtain, indeed, by actual possession ; but by anticepation, confi- 
dent hope, and unwavering faith in the promises of God; compare 
John viii. 56. In our text, however, the apostle refers to the promised 
blessing of a son, which, after long waiting, Araham obtained. 

Ver. 16. "AvSpwror pev yap . . . Gpvvover, now men swear by one 
who is superior, i. e. men appeal to God, when taking an oath, as a wit- 
ness of their sincerity, and as an avenger of falsehood and perjury. 

Kal zdone airoic . . . 6 dexoc, and the oath for confirmation makes 
an end of all dispute among them; i. e. an oath, that contesting parties 
will abide by terms of amity and concord agreed upon, puts an end to 
the disputes which had existed, the parties relying upon an engagement 
of a nature so solemn. An oath, then, is the highest pledge of fidelity 
which men can give. Adrote is the dative after avriNoyiac, viz. avrWoyiac 
[i éore] abroic. 

Such is the custom of men, when ayvrioyla, contradection, question, 
calling in question, dispute, is to be quieted. God has condescended 
to act in a similar way, for our encouragement, and to confirm our belief 
in his promises. 

Ver. 17.'Ev & repiocodrepoy «2+ Tie émayyenriac, on account of which, 
(i. e. because an oath removes all dispute or doubt,) God, desirous of 
showing those to whom the promises are made. ’Ey 9», on account of 
this, see Wahl on év, No. 5. Teptsadrepov, abundantly, modo, eximio, 
insigniter. ’Emucciba, to demonstrate, to exhibit so as to prove. KyXy- 
povopoc, i. e. Christians ; compare ch..iv. 1 3.anac9: 

To dpetateroy rife Povdic abrov, the immutability of his purpose, or, 
of his decree ; for the well of God is the decree of God. 

"Epecirevoey dpxw, interposed by an oath. Meowrevw means, according 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 18. 385 


to classical usage, to act the part of a mediator, to be an internuntius. 
conciliator, between two parties. But here, this sense is impossible. 
God is not a mediator between himself and the heirs of the promise. 
The sense of interposing, then, becomes a necessary one. So the Vul- 
gate, interposuit jusjurandum. He made a pecirny (so to speak) by an 
oath, interposed between himself and the heirs of promise ; i. e. he 
made an oath the means of removing all doubt or question, on their 
part, whether he would faithfully perform what he had promised. 

Ver. 18. “Iva cua dbo tpayparwy .... Ody, so that by two immutable 
things, in regard to which it is impossible that God should prove faith- 
less ; 1. e. sce men’s doubts are removed by appeal to an oath, God, in 
condescension to their weakness, has also made confirmation of his pro- 
mises by an oath, so that there might be no possible ground of doubt. 
But what are the two immutable things? His promise and his oath, 
answer almost all the commentators and critics. But there is room to 
doubt the correctness of this interpretation. The apostle in the preced- 
ing context has mentioned two oaths of God, which have respect to the 
salvation of believers. The one is in the context immediately preceding, 
ver. 13; which, in Gen xxii. 15—18, stands connected with the promise 
of a blessing to all nations, (ver. 18,) through the seed of Abraham, 
i. e. through the Messiah. The other is implied in Heb. iii. 11; where 
the oath that unbelievers shall be excluded from the rest of God, implies, 
of course, an assurance of the same nature, that believers shall be ad- 
mitted to it; compare ch. iv. 5,6. Perhaps, however, the second oath 
is that by which the Messiah is constituted a High-priest, after the order 
of Melchisedek, Ps. cx. 4; and which had been twice adverted to by 
the writer, in the preceding part of his epistle, ch. v. 6, 10. This would 
best agree with the sequel, in ch. vi. 20, where the writer recurs to the 
order of Christ’s high-priesthood, and thus shows that it was at that 
time in his mind. Here, then, are the two immutable things, in which 
believers may confide ; viz. First, The oath that Abraham should have 
a Son, (the Messiah,) in whom all nations should be blessed, Gen. 
xxit. 18. Secondly, The oath that this Son should be High-priest for 
ever, after the order of Melchisedek, Ps. cx. 4. These two oaths it is 
impossible God should disregard ; and the salvation of believers, there- 
fore, is adequately and surely provided for. 

In this opinion, I find that Storr, for substance, agrees. 

On the other hand, to represent the promise and the oath to confirm 
the same, as the two immutable things, seems to be inapposite ; for the 

ze 


385 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 18. 


writer here states, that what is sworn to, even among men, must be 
regarded as fixed or established. The more surely, what God has once 
solemnly declared can never be annulled. The ¢wo things, then, which 
are immutable, are the two different oaths, viz. that in Gen, xxii. 15—18, 
and that in Ps. ex. 4; to which the writer had repeatedly adverted. 

"Ioyupay mapak\now .. . édmicoc, we, who have sought a refuge, 
might have strong persuasion to hold fast the hope which is set before 
us. That is, God has made adequate provision for the salvation of all 
who prove faithful to the cause of Christ; and he has secured it by 
oaths, made at different times, and on diverse occasions. The certainty, 
then, of obtaining the reward promised to fidelity, constitutes a pow- 
erful motive to persevere, for all those who have sought a refuge from 
the power and penalty of sin, in the religion of Jesus. MHapd«Anotv, 
in the sense of comfort, consolation, is common in the New Testament ; 
but, according to the classical use of the word, it means, excttement, 
exhortation, persuasion, &c. This latter use of the word is common 
also to the New Testament writers; and in this sense I understand it, 
in the verse before us. Consolation is not so appropriate to the writer’s 
object here, as excitement, (Anregung, Schneider.) persuasion. 

’Ioyupay means powerful, i. e. having great force, proffering strong 
motives. 

Oi carapuydvrec, we, who seek a refuge. Karagevyw means, to fice 
toward, to flee to, to flee under, viz. a place of refuge, an asylum ; 
which latter is generally designated after the verb. But here, oi caragv- 
yévrec seems to be employed as a periphrasis, in order to designate 
Christians who are seeking a refuge from sin and sorrow. In like man- 
ner, owoptvovc is employed in Acts il. 47. 

Kparijoa, to hold fast, to take firm hold of, to grasp with tenacity, 
Hebrews ptt. ’"EXridoc, hope, here means the objects of hope, i. e. 
the objects of Christian hope, for which Christians hope, or which they 
expect; just as érayyehia, above, means, the objects promised, the 
things promised ; and so, often, in respect to many other words of a 
similar nature. Tooxepévne, proposed, set forth, is a word which was 
employed in respect to the @%Xov or prize of victory, in the Grecian 
games. This was said zpoxeioSat, to be proposed or set before the com- 
petitors. So, in our text, the object of hope, viz. future happiness 
and glory, deliverance from sin and sorrow, is set before all Chris- 
tians, who are xcarapuydurec, seeking a refuge from their guilt and 
miseries. And the repeated oath of God assures them, that such a 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 19. 387 


tefuge is to be found, and also affords a powerful excitement to 
seek it. 

Ver. 19. “Hy we aykuvpay . . . BeBaiay, which we have as an anchor 
of the soul unfailing and firmly fixed; i. e. which hope we are in 
possession of, éxouev, and it will prove to us, in our troubles and dis- 
tresses, what an anchor of sound materials and firmly fixed will be to 
a ship in a tempest; i. e. it will keep us from “‘ making shipwreck of 
the faith.” Many commentators refer jv to rapdkAnow ; but it seems 
to me quite contrary to the manifest object of the passage. Hope is 
often represented under the emblem of an anchor, among the heathen 
writers. "Aodahi# means, that which will not fail, i. e. like an anchor 
of good materials, which will not give way. Be@aéay means firmly 
Jjixed, i. e. having a tenacious hold, which cannot be slipped. 

Kat cicepxopevny . . . Karaterdoparoc, and which enters into that 
within the veil, i. e. which hope enters into the inner sanctuary, the 
sanctum sanctorum, where God dwells. Others refer cisepyouévny, to 
ayxupay. The meaning, as I explain the passage, is, that the objects 
of hope are in heaven, where God dwells. The apartment within the 
veil of the temple at Jerusalem, was that in which the ark of the cove- 
nant was placed, and also the cherubim that shadowed the mercy-seat. 
There the glory of God appeared. This inner sanctuary was an emblem 
ofheaven; see Heb. ix. 1—11.23; x. 1. The phrase éowrepov rou 
Karaverdoparoc, here designates an image of heaven. 

The sentiment of the writer, then, is as follows: ‘‘ Hold fast the 
objects of your Christian hope. These will keep you steady in adher- 
ence to your holy religion, and preserve you, like an anchor, from 
making shipwreck of the faith. These objects of hope are heavenly in 
their nature, # éAlc .... eicepxopevn tic TO Eowrepoy TOU KaTaTETdoparoc. 
Consequently, these objects are immutable, and so dopaXetc kal BéEBacor, 
like a good anchor.” 

"Orov rpdepopoc .... Inaovc, whither Jesus our precursor has gone, 
on our account. Tpddpopoc .... sioiSev, I take to mean simply, that 
Jesus has first led the way into the heavenly sanctuary. So /schylus, 
Her. ad Theb. v. 217, zpddpopoc FASE, i. q. to0HASe. Theodoret makes 
an appropriate remark on this passage. ‘‘ The writer designs to increase 
their confidence by calling Jesus mpécpopoc ; for if he is their precursor, 
and has gone thither on their account, then ought Christians to foilow 
after him, so as to attain the end of their course, Theod. in loc.” 

The expression in the latter part of ver. 19, eicepxopevn cic ré éodrepov 

2c2 


388 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. I. 


rov karareracparoc, seems to have been purposely chosen as a periphra- 
sis of the heavenly sanctuary, in order to direct the minds of the 
Hebrews to the priesthood of Christ ; of which the writer now proceeds 
to treat, after having suspended the consideration of it from ch. v. 11, 
to ch. vi. 19, in order to introduce matter of warning and encourage- 
ment. It was lawful for the high priest only to enter, through the veil, 
into the inner sanctuary. So Jesus, as high-priest of the new dispen- 
sation, entered the eternal sanctuary above, making expiation of per- 
petual efficacy for sinners, Heb. ix. 11, 12, 22—26. 


Having just reproved them for the little progress which they had made in Christian 
knowledge, ch. v. 11.—ch. vi. 3 ; warned them against the dreadful consequences of 
abandoning the Christian religion, ch. vi. 4—8: and encouraged them to hold fast 
their faith and hope even to the end, as they had the example of Abraham, and the 
oath of God to assure them of an adequate reward, ch. vi. 9—19; the writer now 
returns to make the comparison of Christ as high-priest, with Melchisedek, whose 
name, in connexion with that of Christ, had been already more than once introduced, 
ch. v.6, and 10. This subject he pursues to the end of ch. vii. 25; where he resumes 
the topic broken off at ch. v. 10, and completes what he had to say concerning it, 


ch. vil. 26—28. 
CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 1. Odroc yap 6 Medyiledéx, now this Melchisedek, i. e. the Melchi- 
sedek whom I have already named. 

Baowkeve Dadjp. Nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers held this 
place to be the same as Jerusalem. So Ps. Ixxvi. 2, [3.] “In Salem 
is his tabernacle.”” Compare Gen. xiv. 18. The Zadeiu, mentioned in 
John iii. 23, was probably a different place from that which our text 
names; if, indeed, Sadi is meant by our author to designate a place at 
ail. Is it not rather an appellative? See the writer's own interpre- 
tation, ver. 2. 

‘Iepevo tov Oeod tov inpisrov, Hebrew wy Psy) 17D, Gen. xiv. 18. 
It was common, among the ancients, for a king to be priest also; thus 
uniting the two highest honours among men, in his own person. The 
Jewish kings did not do thus, so long as the race of David was upon the 
throne ; because the priesthood was confined to the tribe of Levi. But 
the Maccabees did it; Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 19, compare Macc. in the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 2, 3. 389 


Apocrypha. Among foreign nations, this was very common. In refer- 
ence to this double honour, Peter calls Christians Bacieor iepdrevpa, 
1 Pet. ii. 9; and John, in Rev. i. 6, says, that Christ has made for his 
followers a Baordeiav, and constituted them ispeic 7H Ocd. 

How highly the Jews of the apostle’s day estimated the honour of 
priesthood, may be seen from Philo; who says, ‘‘ The law of kingly 
office applies to priests ei¢ cepvdrnra Kat rYyLjy, im regard to dignity 
and honour, de Legat. ad Caium, p. 832.” In the same book, he 
represents the Jewish people as regarding ‘the high priesthood to be 
as much above the kingly office, as God is more exalted than men.” 
All this serves to show, that the apostle, by exhibiting and proving the 
priesthood of Christ, not only pointed out the way in which pardon of 
sin had been effected, but also contributed much towards causing the 
Messiah to be honoured, in the view of the Hebrews. 

In calling Melchisedek a priest of the most high God, the scrip- 
ture designs to exhibit him as a true priest of the true God, maker and 
lord of heaven and earth, Gen. xiv. 19, 22. 

‘O ouvarvrijsac . . . evdoyhoag avrov, who met, Abraham returning 
Srom tke slaughter of the [confederate] kings, and blessed him; see 
Gen, xiv. 17—20. 

Ver. 2. ‘Qi cat dexarny . . . 'ABpaap, to whom also Abraham gave 
a tenth part of all, viz. a tenth aro ravrwy roy akpoduiwy, of all 
the spoils (see ver. 4,) which he had taken from the confederate kings 
whom he had discomfited, Gen. xiv. 14—16. 20. Aexarny agrees with 
poipay understood. 

TIparov pév éppevevdpevoc, Bacirsve cxacoovync, by interpretation, 
[his name] means, first, righteous king. Baowdeve dexacoovyne resem- 
bles the formulas, God of mercy, God of glory, &c. instead of merciful 
God, glorious God, &c. which are common indeed in all languages, 
but more especially in the Hebrew. In fact, the sense put upon Bacc- 
Aevde Cukacoodyne, in the translation, is the only one that can-be put upon 
it; for what is a king of righteousness, in any other sense? The 
phrase, king of a nation or people, or of living beings, we understand ; 
but what a king of an abstract existence is, which belongs solely to 
mental conception, it would be difficult to understand. 

"Exeira 6€ kat Baowede . . . eipnvnc, and then he is a king of Salem, 
which means, king of peace. 

Ver. 3. ’Ararwo, apjrwp, having neither father nor mother, i. e. re- 
corded in the sacred genealogies ; or, perhaps, whose fathcr and mother 


390 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 3. 


were not of kingly rank. These words were applied literally, by the 
Greeks, to some of their gods; then figuratively, to those who were 
orphans, and to those whose parents were obscure and of low origin. 
Thus Livy, IV. 3, nullo patre natus,” respecting a person of ignoble 
descent. So Horace, Serm. I. 6. 10, “ nuilis majoribus natos.” Philo 
calls Sarah, aparopa, probably, because her mother is not mentioned 
in the sacred records. And in sucha sense, the apostle appears to 
call Melchisedek, adzdrwp and dpijrwo. The explanation of these terms 
is to be found, (as one will easily believe,) in the word ayeveaddynroe, 
without any genealogy, viz. of whose genealogy no mention is made in 
scripture. 

The Arabians say of a man, who has by his own efforts procured 
an exalted place of honour, and who is descended from ignoble 
parents, a LJ U, he has no father, i. e. he is not named from his 
father, or derives not his titles and honours from his father. Michaélis 
prefers the explanation which this idiom would afford, in respect to the 
passage under examination. But the other seems preferable, on account 
of the explanation which the writer himself has made, by adding, ayeve- 
adéynroc. See Schleusner and Wahl, on azdrwp and pijrwp. 

Mijre apy . . . Exwv, having neither beginning of days, nor end 
of life, i.e. either, “‘ Whose time of birth or death is not related ;” or 
rather, ‘‘ Who, as a high priest, has no limited time assigned for the 
commencement and expiration of his office :” for so the Levitical clause 
leads us to interpret this expression. The Levitical priests were limited 
in their service; see Numb. iv. 3. 23. 35. 43. 47. (compare Numb. viii. 
24,25.) Zwijc, according to the latter mode of interpretation, refers 
to the life of Melchisedek as priest, i. e. the time of his priesthood. 
Zw is often equivalent in sense to Kkaipoc fwijc, the season or time 
which one lives. The meaning of the writer then is, that Melchisedek’s 
priesthood was limited to no definite time, 1. e. he was sacerdos per- 
petuus, a priest without limitation of office. So the Latins say, Dicta- 
tor perpetuus, &c. 

’Adwpowwpévoc b& .... Oumvexec, being like to the Son of God, remain- 
eth a priest perpetually. The sacred writer, in Ps. cx. 4, says of the 
Messiah, that he is pip) v5, Septuagint, iepeve cic Tov ai@va, 1. q. 
gic TO Omvekec 3 and then adds, ‘‘ after the order of Melchisedek.” 
First, then, Christ is asserted by the Psalmist to be a perpetual priest ; 
and next, to confirm or explain this assertion, it is added, that he is so, 
according to the order of Melchisedek. The implication is, of course, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIL. 3. 391 


that Melchisedek is perpetual priest ; for this is a special point of the 
comparison. The apostle means to say, in our text, that inasmuch as 
Melchisedek is understood to have a perpetual priesthood, and since the 
priesthood of the Son of God is affirmed, in the hundred-and-tenth 
Psalm, to be like his; so it follows, of course, that the priesthood of 
Christ is understood to be perpetual, or that Melchisedek, in regard to 
his priesthood, was like to, or could be compared with, the Son of God. 

In respect to the object of this assertion, I apprehend nothing more 
is intended, than that the priesthood of Christ and Melchisedek was not, 
like that of the sons of Aaron, limited to any definite period. In the 
absolute sense, eic 70 dunvexéec clearly is not to be understood. Melchise- 
dek’s priesthood terminated with his life ; so Christ’s priestly and kingly 
office both will cease, when the work of redemption 13 fully accomplished, 
1 Cor. xy. 24—28. But in neither case is there any statute, which 
limits the specific time of accession to office, and of egress from it. Of 
course, the order of Christ’s priesthood, and that of Melchisedek, dif- 
fered greatly in this respect from that of the sons of Aaron, and was, 
as the writer goes on to declare, greatly superior to it. Dictator per- 
petuus among the Romans, for example, was surely a higher, or at least, 
a more honorable office, than that of ordinary dictator ! 

Our English version of a¢wpowpévoc, made like to, does not seem to 
give the true sense of the passage. The apostle is not labouring to show 
that Melchisedek, in respect to his priesthood, was made like to Christ ; 
but vice versa. He is seeking to illustrate and establish the perpetuity 
of Christ’s priesthood, by comparing it with the well-known priesthood 
of Melchisedek. Hence, to say that Melchisedek was made like to the 
Son of God, is a tarepov mpdrepov ; for Ps. xc. 4, compares the Son of 
God as priest, to Melchisedek. This, too, is the order of nature and 
propriety ; for the priesthood of Melchisedek preceded that of Christ ; 
it was something with which the Hebrews were already acquainted, inas- 
much as their Scriptures had repeatedly spoken of it. Of course, the 
apostle, in aiming to illustrate and establish the priesthood of Christ, 
(a priesthood that was recent, and not well understood by the Hebrews,) 
would very naturally pursue the method of comparison offered to his 
view in Ps. ex. 4, i, e. a comparison of Christ’s priesthood to that of 
Melchisedek. "Agwpowpévoc means then, not made like to, but like to, 
possibly, lekened to, i. e. being compared to. 

The whole passage, from 6 cvvavrijcag in ver. 1, to rp vid row Ocod, in 
ver 3, is plainly a parenthetic explanation, (a very common occurrence 


392 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 4. 


in the writings of Paul,) thrown in for the sake of suggesting to the 
reader’s mind some considerations respecting the character and dignity 
of Melchisedek, which would be very very useful, in regard to a right 
understanding of the comparison that was to be made out in the sequel. 
Otroc yup 6 MedyiZedex, &c. in ver, 1, is the immediate nominative to 
fever lepede ei¢ ro eunvexec, in ver. 3. The construction of the whole 
sentence is thus; ‘‘ This Melchisedek, king of Salem, priest . . . (who 
met Abraham ... and blessed him... whose name means, first, 
righteous king, and secondly, peaceful king . .. of a descent no 
where recorded, having a priestly office not limited, and being in respect 
to his priesthood like to the Son of God,) is a perpetual priest.” If it 
be objected, that the participles epuevevdpevoc, Exwv and apwpowpevog 
have not, like cvvayr#oac, the article before them, and therefore cannot 
be arranged in such a construction; the answer is, that nouns, parti- 
ciples, and adjectives, put in apposztion, either take or omit the article, 
at the pleasure of the writer. E.g. 6 Medxeredex—PBuorevc . . «>. 
iepevc, in apposition. Then 6 ovrartijcag . . . evdoyijoag . . « Eppie- 
VEVOMEVOS « « « ATATWP, Apirwp ayeveahdynrog . . . Exwy . . . &bwpow- 
pévoc-—all in apposition with 6 ovvayrioac ; a mode of using adjectives 
and participles by no means unusual. See Gersdorf, Beitrage, &c. 
Th. V. Ueber die Stellung der Adjectiven, &c. In the translation, I 
have, for the sake of perspicuity, broken up the involved construction of 
the original, and made several simple sentences. See Excursus XIII. 

Ver. 4. Oewpeire Oé . . . marpidoyne, consider now how great a per- 
sonage this must be, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tithe of 
the spoils. Oéwpeire, see, perceive, consider. Nékoc, of what exalted 
rank. ‘AxpoSwiwy, in its literal sense, means, summetas acervi frumenti, 
the top part of a heap of grain. It was usual to offer the primitie 
or first fruits to God. But as offerings were made to their gods, by 
the Greeks, from spoils taken in war, axpoSima came at last to signify 
in the Greek language, any kind of spoils, from which an offering for 
the gods was taken. The Latins called such offerings, manubie. The 
word dxpoSwiwy has the general sense of spoils here, and evidently 
refers to the spoils which Abraham had taken from the confederate 

‘kines, Gen. xiv. 16. 

The object of the apostle, in mentioning the circumstance here ad- 
verted to, plainly is, to exalt the dignity of Melchisedek. The high reve- 
rence which the Jews had for Abraham is well known. If now it could 
be shown to the Hebrews, that Melchisedek was superior to Abraham, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vil. 5. 393 


then the superiority of Christ, who is like to Melchisedek, is also 
shown. Moreover, since the patriarch or head of a nation was reck- 
oned in the East as excelling in dignity all his descendants; so, if 
Melchisedek’s dignity exceeded that of Abraham; it would follow, 
that it exceeded that of all his descendants—among whom were the 
Levitical priests. It is for the sake of establishing this last point, that 
the comparison of Melchisedek with Abraham is introduced in ver. 4; 
as the sequel plainly shows. This being established, it would follow, 
that Christ’s priesthood, (which was like that of Melchisedek,) was 
superior to the Aaronical priesthood ; which is the point that the writer 
designs to illustrate and establish. - 

Ver 5. Kat ot pév , . . apavovrec, moreover, the sons of Levi, 
who obtain the office of the priesthood, i. e. who are constituted priests. 
All the sons of Levi were not properly priests; but only the descend- 
ants of Aaron. Hence, the writer adds, rijv tepareiay NapBavorrer. It 
was true, indeed, that the whole tribe of Levi had a right to tithes; 
Numb. xviii. 283—30; Deut. xiv. 22. 27—29. But it is not material 
to the writer’s object here, to mention this. He is concerned merely 
with the pricsts; who, as descendants of Levi, were of course entitled 
to tithes. If he could show that the priests, the most honoured part 
of the Levites, who were legally entitked to receive tithes from the other 
descendants of Abraham, were still inferior to Melchisedek ; then would 
he show that the priesthood of Christ was of an order superior to theirs. 
The payment of tithes is an acknowledgment of superiority, in regard to 
the rank of the person who receives them. If Abraham, then, paid tithes 
to Melchisedek, he acknowledged him as superior in respect to rank. 

"Evrodjy Exovaw «2... vopov, have, by the law, a commission to tithe 
the people. See the passages of the law just referred to. ’Evrodjy, 
direction, mandate, a precept that gives liberty or confers a right to do 
any thing. 

Totr’ tort .... APpaap, that is, their own brethren, although descend- 
ants from Abraham. ’EéedndvSérac ék rij¢ doptoc, a Hebraistic mode 
of expression ; e. g. Gen. xxxv. 11, kings 8%) psom9 ; Gen. xlvi. 26, 
7 NBD, Ex. i. 5, et al. The Greeks used yevvaoSac trd rivoc, in 
such cases. The meaning of the passage is, the priests of the tribe of 
Levi, although descended in common with the other tribes from Abra- 
ham, yet have been elevated to a rank above them, and receive the 
tribute of acknowledged elevation, in the tithes which are paid them by 
the others. 


394 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 6, 7. 


But why should the elevation of the priests above their brethren be 
mtroduced here? I answer, in order to show that the most honored 
part of the sons of Levi, the most honored tribe, were of a rank inferior 
to Melchisedek ; consequently, their priesthood was of an order inferior 
to that of Christ. 

Ver. 6, ‘O 0é pp yeveadoyotipevoc é& abraéy, but he whose descent is not 
reckoned from them; a periphrasis, by which Melchisedek is described, 
and, at the same time, additional intimation is ‘given, that he was of an 
order of priests different from that of the Levites. 

Acdexdrwke 4... evd\dynxe, tithed [received tithes from] Abraham, 
and blessed him to whom the promises were made. Akdexarwke iS a 
Hellenistic word, being found only in the Septuagint and New Testa- 
ment. The meaning is, that Melchisedek received from Abraham a tenth 
of the spoils; which was the same ratio with the tithes received by the 
Levitical priesthood. Kat rov txovra rac érayyediac evdoynke, a peri- 
phrasis designating Abraham, to whom God had made promises of great 
blessings : compare Heb. vi. 12—15. 

Ver. 7. Xwple cf rdaone .... evdoyeirar, and beyond all controversy, 
the inferior was blessed by the superior. "Avrioyiac, gainsaying, dis- 
pute, doubt, compare ch. vi. 16. ”EXarroy here means merely infer?- 
ority in point of rank, office, or station; not inferiority in regard to 
moral or religious character, which it is not the writer’s object to bring 
into view, as it is not to his present purpose. Melchisedek was both 
king and priest: Abraham was neither; at least he is not called by 
either appellation. He was, indeed, an Emir, i.e. the head of a com- 
pany of migratory shepherds, (Nomades,) and had a large number of 
dependants; as may be seen in Gen. xiv. 14. Abraham is also called 
81), prophet, Gen. xx. 7; but he is not called 179, although he 
Peicily offered sacrifices; nor do the Scriptures call him 729, 
king. 

Kpetrrovog is the antithesis or correlate of éd\arroyv, and therefore 
means superior. Both adjectives are of the newter gender, as is mani- 
fest from ~Xarroy ; but this gender in adjectives is employed to denote 
abstract quality, i. e. it is used in the same way as abstract nouns ; 
which are very frequently employed, by the sacred writers, instead of 
concrete ones. E. g. Christ is the way, the truth, and Ife, i.e. he ts 
the guide, the instructor, and the author of life, to men. So here, the 
literal rendering would be, inferiority is blessed by superiority, i. e. the 
inferior person is blessed by the superior one. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 8. 395 


The apostle takes this as a position which will be granted by the 
Hebrews, from the simple consideration, that Abraham, by paying tithes 
to Melchisedek, of course acknowledged his own inferior rank. 

Ver. 8. Kal ade pv . . . AapPavovor, here, also, men receive tithes 
who die; but there, one of whom it is testified that he lives. A very 
difficult verse, about which there has been no small controversy. The 
literal sense of the words would make nothing for the writer’s purpose. 
Of the xatural life of men he is not speaking; but of the duration of the 
priestly office, *Qde means, in respect to the Levites ; éxei, an regard to 
Melchisedek. *Q0e and éxet may also be literally rendered, in this place, 
and, in that place; which gives the meaning just proposed. But what 
is droSvijoxov7ec? Is it the natural death of the body? But, in this 
respect, the Levites differed not from the king of Salem; both were 
mortals. In another world, too, they live as well as he, i. e. both are 
immortal also. Zi, therefore, cannot refer simply to living in another 
world. Nor is there any ground for supposing the apostle means to 
assert, that. Melchisedek’s high priesthood continues in heaven; as some 
have imagined. There is no intimation in Scripture of any such thing, 
in regard to any one but Jesus. I must therefore understand dzoSvije- 
kovrec as being used figuratively here, in order to denote the brief and 
mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood. The figurative use of 
Svjoxw and aroSvjoxw, in the New Testament, is very common ; although 
no instance occurs, perhaps, where it has the same shade of meaning 
which it appears to have here. Schleusner, however, gives to Svijoxw, in 
1 Tim. v. 6, the same sense, viz. gui officio suo non fungitur. But in 
the verse before us, he construes adzoSvijoxovrec as meaning, mortales, and 
én as applying to Christ, not to Melchisedek ; most plainly against the 
context that follows. 

The word 2 seems to me, plainly, not to mean here, either natural 
life, or future immortality, but an enduring, unlimited time of priest- 
hood; and to designate the-same idea as pévet iepede etc 70 Ounvexéc, IN 
ver. 3. A sense like this, viz. that of duration, perennitas, the word Zaw 
often has. If this be correct, then its correlate, dtoSvjoxoyrec must of 
course have the sense of short-lived, or deceasing, viz. as to office, or the 
priesthood. In this way, and in this only, can I make out any tolerable 
sense of the passage, consistently with the context. Nothing can be 
plainer, than that the object of the writer is to show the perpetuity of 
Melchisedek’s priesthood, and not that of his natural life; and by con- 
sequence, he would also make out the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood, 


396 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vil 9, 10, 11. 


To construe azoSvijcxovrec, then, as referring to physical mortality, and 
¢j as having respect to physical or natural life, is to quit the subject 
under the consideration of the writer, and resort to one which is alto- 
gether inapposite to his purpose. That aw and fw, moreover, often 
denote perpetuity, perennitas, the reader may readily see by consulting 
Wahl’s Lex. faw, No. 2, 8, and Guy, Nol, y. The word aro$vijcxortec, 
then, by the force of antithesis, denotes, the reverse of this; and peren- 
nity, here, is not ascribed to natural life, but to the priesthood. _ 

Ver. 9. Kai, we éxoceizely . . . Oedexarwrar, yea, even Levi, who 
received tithes, was (if I may be allowed the expression) himself tithed, 
through Abraham. ‘Qe ézoc eimety is very common, in the best Greek 
writers. It is a peiAcypa, softening down, of an expression, which a 
writer supposes his readers may deem to be too strong, or which may 
have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect 
apology, for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase. 
It is very happily introduced here; as the subject itself is one which 
the writer did not intend to urge as capable of being scanned with 
metaphysical exactness, but only as bearing a popular mode of expla- 
nation. 

Kal, verily truly, imo, vero, profecto; See Wahl, Lex. kai, 2. b. . 
Brettschneider, Lex. cat. 5, 6. 

Ver. 10. "Ere yap év ri oopte . « . Medxuoedex, for he was then in the 
loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. "Ext etiam, nunc, even 
now, already, or, etiam tunc, even then, then. The meaning of the 
writer is, that at the time then present, viz. when Melchisedek met 
Abraham, Levi was év rH dopvi warpdc. Our English version, ‘‘ He 
was yet in the loins of his father, gives a sense quite different from that 
- of the writer; for the meaning of this must be, ‘ he was yet to be 
begotten,” i. e. he was not yet born. But the apostle designs to say, 
and it is appropriate to his object to say, that even then, when Melchi- 
sedek met Abraham, Levi already (in a certain sense) existed, and, 
through Abraham, paid tithes to the king of Salem, 1. e. acknowledged 
inferiority compared with him. This is the very point which the writer 
1s labouring to illustrate. See Excursus XIV. 

Ver. 11. Ei prey oby redeiwore so... Hv, further, of perfection were 
[attainable] by the Levitical priesthood Mey ody, or, pevovv, moreovers 
further. Mey ovy are often used as a continuative particle, merely indi- 
cating that the writer is advancing to another topic or paragraph. Ody 
is illative, in a general way; but when joined with pev, it should not, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 11. 397 


usually, be separately translated. That a new topic is begun here, will 
be plain to every considerate reader. 

TeAXetworc, a word very variously understood and translated. Some 
render it, accomplishment, viz. of the design of the priesthood ; others, 
sanctification ; others, consummate happiness; others, moral rectitude 
or perfection. It is best explained by a reference to corresponding pas- 
sages in the sequel. In ch. ix. 9, it is said, that ‘‘ the Levitical sacrifices 
could not reXer@oar the person who offered them ;” 
ch. ix. 14) appears plainly to mean, ‘‘ to take away the burden of guilt, 
and to render pure or holy the minds of the worshippers.” Again, in ch. 
x. 1, it is affirmed of the sacrifices, that ‘‘ they could not veXecaas those 
who approached the altar,” i. e. those who offered them ; and by com- 
paring ch. x. 2—4 with this, it is plain the writer means to say, that 
“‘ the sacrifices could not bestow peace of conscience—could not take 
away the burden of sin from the mind of the worshipper ; but they left 
him filled with apprehensions, that the penalty of the divine law might 
still be executed upon him.’’ Here, then, is plainly the reXefwore, which 
the Levitical priesthood could not effect. It could neither purify the 
mind or soul of the worshipper, nor free him from the burden of his sins, 
or from the apprehension that they might be punished. Christ did both; 
and this is the reXetwore here spoken of, which he accomplished, and 
which the law could not accomplish. Chap. x. 3. 14. is very direct to 
this purpose. The writer, then, has explained redeiwotc, by the sequel 
of his epistle ; and in a manner altogether accordant with the object of 


which (if we compare 


his reasoning here. 

‘O Aade yap ex’ adryH vevopoSérnro, (for the people received the law in 
connexion with this.) This circumstance is evidently to be placed in a 
parenthesis. Nevopodérnro, were subjected to the law, were put under 
the law. Such a construction in the passive voice is peculiar ; compare 
Rom. iii. 4. Ez’ airy, on this condition, connected with this, or, under 
these circumstances ; compare Wahl on éxt II. 4,b. The meaning is, 
that the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic law are closely and insepa- 
rably linked together, so that if one is changed, the other must of neces- 
sity be; as the writer proceeds to show in the sequel. 

Tic Ere xpeia «2422. AEyeoSar, what need was there, any more, that 
another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not be 
called after the order of Aaron? That is, ‘if the Levitical priesthood, 
and the law connected with it, accomplished all, in respect to purification 
from sin, and the giving of quiet to the conscience, which was needed 


398 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 12, 13, 14. 


then why should the Psalmist speak of a priest, who was of an order 
different from that of Aaron, and who was yet to arise?” This would 
be unnecessary, if the priesthood of Aaron were adequate to the great 
purposes of salvation. "Ere any more, any longer. 

Ver. 12. MerariSepévng yap .... yiverar, but in case the priesthood 
ts changed, there must needs be also a change of the law. MerariSnpe 
means, to transfer, to translate. This sense corresponds sufficiently 
well with the intention of the writer, whose design is to show, that the 
priesthood of the ancient dispensation had been transferred to Christ, 
although on conditions very different from those formerly attached to it ; 
and that Christ not only was a priest in fact, but that his priesthood, 
coming in the place of the other ancient priesthood, superseded it. 
Nopov here means, the Jewish dispensation, the Mosaic law. The 
change spoken of in respect to this, has reference to the fact, that all 
its ritual observances and its priesthood, (which were inseparably con- 
nected,) must be laid aside together, under the new dispensation. As 
Christ’s priesthood differed from that of the Levites, so must the law, by 
which it is regulated, differ from that which regulated the Aaronical 
priesthood. 

This conclusion is in itself so obvious, that the writer does not deem 
it necessary to produce any formal arguments here to establish it. He 
proceeds to show, that the priesthood itself is changed, by adducing 
facts and declarations recorded in the Old Testament. (1.) Christ 
sprang from the tribe of Judah, ver. 13, 14. (2.) He was to be a priest 
of the order of Melchisedek, ver. 15—17. Consequently, the law, which 
was necessarily connected with the Levitical priesthood, must also be 
changed. 

Ver. 13. "Ep Ov yap ...-+. Suotacrnpiv, now he, concerning whom 
these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom served 
at the ultar. Yup here connects the illustration or proof with the pro- 
position in ver. 12. It may, however, be translated bué, with nearly the 
same effect. The reasoning, then, would stand thus: “If the priest- 
hood be changed, the law must also be changed ; but the priesthood is 
changed, [i. e. Christ, who is appointed to the priesthood, sprung from 
the tribe of Judah ;] therefore, the law is laid aside :” compare ver. 18. 
and seq. 

Upocésynce. Lpoceyw means, to give heed, to apply the mind to, rov 
your being understood ; also, to give one’s care to, to serve. 

Ver. 14. Ipddndov yap .....+ éddAnae, for it is quite manifest that 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Vil. 15, 16. 399 


our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses said 
nothing concerning the priesthood, i. e. he gave the priest’s office to the 
sons of Levi, Numb. xviii. 6, and not to the tribe of Judah. The reader 
is left to supply, at the end of the verse, the conclusion of the syllogism, 
(which Paul very frequently omits,) viz. perariSerae ob i tepwovrn, con- 
sequently the priesthood is changed ; 1. e. since Christ is high-priest, 
who was of the tribe of Judah, it follows, of course, that there must be 
a change in the priesthood; for none but Levites, under the ancient 
dispensation, could be priests. 

Ver. 15. Kat repioodrepov ert «2.444 Erepoc, and still more evident is 
tt. [viz. that the priesthood must be changed] z¢f another priest has 
arisen, like to Melchisedek. Between oj dor, oddndov, and Karadndor, 
there is no important difference of signification. The two latter seem 
naturally to render the word somewhat more intensive. ’Aviorarat, is 
risen up, viz. the high-priest in question, has already arisen or made 
his appearance, zs already extant. ; 

KaS’ époudrnra, according to the likeness, in the similitude, i. e. like, 
resembling : ina sense like that of kara rafw, in ch. v. 6. 10; vi. 20; 
vil. 11, Hebrew, aT oY, Ps. cx. 4. Compare dgwpowpévoc in 
chipvil.. 3: ; 

Ver. 16. "Oc ov kara vopov ....+. axaradtrov, who was not made [a 
priest] by an ordinance of temporary obligation, but by an authority 
of endless duration ; i. e. he was not made a priest under the Mosaic 
law, which was to be set aside, ver. 12. 18, seq. ; but by the oath of God, 
which is immutable ; compare ver. 20—24, and 28. 

Lapkuxijc, fleshly ; hence, secondarily, frazl, infirm, short-lived, 
temporary, quicquid caducum. So the Hebrew qWwa, Gen. vi. 3. 
Ps. lvi. 5; Ixxvili. 39. Job x. 4. Isa. xxxi. 3; compare also doSevéc and 
avwoehéc, in ver. 18. ’Eyrodjj¢ means here, the precept or command 
respecting the appointment of priests, contained in the vépoc, i. e. 
Mosaic law. ’EvroXije capkexijc is, then, preceptum caducum, a tempo- 
rary command, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature. So 
ver. 12 and 18 require us to interpret the passage. 

Avvamy, authority, authoritative appointment. So Acts iv. 7, év roig 
duvdper; by what authority? see also | Cor. v. 4. Zwijc, perennitas, 
perpetuity ; see on ver. 8, above. “Axaradirov, quod destrur nequit, 
indissoluble, hence immutable, imperishable, perpetual. As it is the 
antithesis of capkccie, the meaning of capxkjc must be that which is 
given above. 


400 COMMENTARY ON HEB. virr. 17, 18. 


That this interpretation of the whole verse is well grounded, follows 
plainly from the succeeding verse, (ver. 17,) which is adduced simply to 
prove the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood. 

Ver. 17. Maprupet yup, viz. i ypapy, or TO rvevpa TO &ywv. The 
nominative, in such cases, would of course be supplied by the readers 
of the epistle. In the writings of the Mishnical doctors, the usual mode 
of appeal to the Scriptures is, TORI, 1. e. quod dicitur, or, Néyerar yap, 
paprupeirac. The writer makes the ‘appeal to Scripture, in this case, to 
confirm and enforce what he had just asseried. 

The conclusion is now left for the reader to supply. In ver. 11, the 
writer had said, that the Levitical priesthood, and the system of law 
under which the people of Israel had been placed, were connected 
together. In ver. 12, he intimates that the connexion was so intimate, 
that whatever affected one would affect the other; and, consequently, 
that if the priesthood be changed, the law itself must be. ‘ But the 
priesthood is changed,” is the next proposition which he establishes, 
ver. 13—17. It follows, therefore, (and this is the conclusion which the 
reader is now to supply,) that the law is also changed. 

The writer proceeds to give another reason why the ancient law must 
be repealed, or rather be superseded. One reason just given above 
is, that the priesthood is changed, which demands a corresponding 
change of the law. Another reason now to be given, is the inefficacy 
of the whole legal institution, in respect to spiritual pardon and sanctifi- 
cation. 

Ver. 18. ’ASérnotc pev yap... . davwdedec. There is, moreover, a set- 
ting aside of the preceding law, beciuks it was inefficient and unavailing. 
Mey yup, continuative, (as often,) further, also, moreover, besides ; the 
transition being made to another argument, and per yap showing that 
the subject is continued, and something more added toit. 'AYéryorc, 
rejection, setting aside, abrogation; a stronger word than dyvadXay). 
Mooaynvane, literally, preceding, 1.e. going before the Christian dis- 
pensation, i.q. the ancient law. ‘'AgSevéc kat avwdedec are words of 
nearly the same import here. AoSevee is said of that which has not 
power to accomplish any particular end proposed; and dyw@edée is said 
of that which proves to be neither useful nor availing, for the purpose 
to which it has been applied. The meaning here is, that the ancient 
law, with all its ritual, had proved to be altogether incompetent to effect 
the reXeiworv mentioned in ver. 11, i.e. the purification of the sinner, 
and that peace of conscience which is inspired by the well-grounded 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 19, 20. 401 


hope of pardon for sin: compare ver. 19; and ch. ix. 9, 14; ch. x. 
1—4. The two words doSevée and avuedec increase the intensity 
of the affirmation. The epithet capxccijc, in ver. 16, is of a similar 


nature. 


Ver. 19. Obdew yap éredelwaev 6 vopoc, for the law perfected nothing. 
Ovcev, neuter gender, is used here for ovdéva, masculine, i. e. no one ; 
just as 7o éXarrov, in ver. 2, means the superior person, i. e. Mel- 
chisedek. Td wav and ravra are repeatedly used, by John, for rac 
and rdyrec, and so of other adjectives. ’EreXeiwoe means, did not 
effect a redelworc, did not purify and pacify the consciences and 
minds of sinners. We have no one English word, which corresponds 
at all with the force of the Greek original; and we must therefore con- 
tent ourselves, either with a kind of literal rendering of it, or with a 
periphrasis, leaving the explanation for notes. 

"Erevoaywy) of .... 79 Oe, but the introduction of a better hope 
[does]. ’EreXeéwoe is implied after éXridoc, by the laws of grammar. 
The introduction of a better hope does perfect men, i. e. it inspires © 
them with well-grounded hope of pardon, and “ purifies their con- 
sciences from dead works, so that they may serve the living God.” 
ch. ix. 14. ’Exewcaywy), superinduction, is said of one thing which is 
introduced in the place of another; e. g. in this case, of the gospel, 
which was superinduced upon the Mosaic law.  ’EAzic xpetrtwv Means 
a better source or ground of hope, viz, the gospel was a better ground 
of hope to the sinner than the law, Av jjc, by which, by means of which, 
through which, i. e. in the way disclosed by the gospel, éyyiZoper ro 
Oo, we draw nigh to God, we have access to God. Under the ancient 
law, the high priest only entered the holy of holies, to procure pardon 
for the people. Under the gospel, the way is opened by Jesus, for all 
penitent sinners to ‘‘ come boldly to the throne of grace,” ch. iv. 16, 
in order to obtain the blessings which they need. "EyyiZw is frequently 
construed with the dative, in Hellenistic Greek; see Winer’s Gram. 
§ 24. 4. Septuagint, Gen. xxvii. 21; Exod. xix. 22. 

Ver. 20. Kai caS’ daoy ov xwpic dpxwpoctac, further, since not with- 
out an oath, supply iepeve yéyovey “Inoove from the latter part of the 
following phrase, which is the antithesis of this. KaY doov, in this 
case refers to kar& rooovroy in ver. 22; and the intervening phrases are 
added by the writer, only by way of explanation and comparison, It 
is difficult, if not impossible, to give the exact features of the original 
here, in any copy. The argument of the writer stands thus: ‘The 

2D 


402 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 2], 22. 


gospel is a better source of hope; for, as much (xa doov) as thie 
appointment of a priest, by an oath, exceeds, in solemnity and impor- 
tance, an arrangement to take the office merely by descent, so much 
(xara tooovroy, ver. 22) does the new covenant, of which Jesus is the 
sponsor, exceed the old.”’ ‘Opxwyocta does not differ in meaning from 
épxoc, unless it be, that the former applies rather to the act of taking an_ 
oath, being derived from épxo¢e and bpyvpe. 

Ver. 21. Oi pev . . . yeyovdrec, for they, i. e, the Levites became 
priests without an oath. Mev yap often means, zndeed, in fact, verily ; 
but here pey is only the sign of protaszs. The Levites were priests in 
consequence of being the descendants of Aaron; Jesus became a priest 
only by special appointment, sanctioned by an oath, as follows. 

‘O C& pera Opkwpociac . . . Medyigedex, but he (Jesus, became a 
priest] with an oath, by him who said to him, ‘ The Lord hath sworn, 
and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, of the order of 
Melchisedek,” Ps. cx. 4. MerapednSioerae signifies, to regret, to alter 
one’s mind or purpose through regret ; and simply, to change or alter 
one’s purpose. 

Ver. 22. Kara rocovrov . . . "Inoove, Jesus is the surety of a cove- 
nant so much the better. On xara rocovroy, see above. Arabjcyn 
(Ja) means, covenant, promise, disposition, arrangement, testament ; 
consequently, when applied to the ancient Jewish law, or to Chris- 
tianity, it means, dispensation, economy. Kpeirrovoc means, better than 
the ancient duaSjxn; i. e. the hope inspired by the new caSijxcn is as 
much better than the ancient daSijxq could inspire, as the new da- 
Sin is superior to the old. "Eyyvoc, sponsor, pledge, surety. Many 
critics have supposed, that this word is chosen here, on account of its 
likeness to éyyiZoer in the nineteenth verse; so that it constitutes a 
kind of rapovopacia with it. However this may be, the word is alto- 
gether appropriate to the writer’s purpose. He had spoken of a better 
hope, in ver. 19. Jt was natural to ask, What is the ground, or secu- 
rity, that this hope would be realized? This is answered by the assu- 
rance, that Jesus is &yyvo¢ for the dispensation which supports it. 

The writer now proceeds to add another reason why the Levitical 
priesthood must be considered as far inferior to that of Jesus. As men 
in a frail and dying state are constituted priests, under the Levitical law, 
the consequence is, that the priesthood is liable to continual change, and 
must necessarily pass from the hands of one to another, in a short time. 
Not so, in the case of Christ ; who, being exalted above the heavens, and 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIL. 23, 24. 403 


constituted high priest in the temple not made with hands, hath an 
immutable priesthood ; subject to no succession. 

Ver. 23. Kai ot pév mclovec.... rapapévey, again, those priests, viz. 
descendants of Aaron, are many, since by reason of death they cannot 
be permanent. I)\ziovec refers to numbers consituted by repeated suc- 
cession ; not to the number of priests existing at any one time. Ourdry 
is put in the dative, as signifying the means. The writer, doubtless, 
intends, that the comparison here shall be referred to the high priest’s 
office in particular; for he is all along considering Jesus as dpytepedy. 
The number of priests, in general, is stated by Josephus to have been 
fifteen hundred. Contra Apion. I. 22. 

Ver. 24. ‘O o€, dua ro pévety.... teowoivny, but he, because he con- 
tinwes [a priest] for ever, has a priesthood without succession. That 
pévey here refers to priesthood, and not to simple duration of life, seems 
to me quite clear, from comparing ver. 3, (ad finem,) 17, and 21. The 
very object of the writer is, to show the difference between the order of 
Christ’s priesthood and that of the Levites. To say that Christ lives for 
ever, in the world above, is to say no more than what is equally true 
of the sons of Aaron, who surely are immortal beings. But to say that 
he continues a perpetual priest, and that his office is therefore subject 
to no transfer and succession like theirs, is saying what is altogether 
adapted to the writer’s purpose, and perfectly accords with the assertions 
in the verses to which a reference has just been made. The reasoning 
stands thus: Jehovah has, by an oath, constituted the Messiah tepéa 
gic Tov aigva; and because he is thus constituted perpetual 
priest, his priesthood has not, like that of Aaron, any succession in 
office. 

’"Arapafaroy is altogether an appropriate word here, and more signifi- 
cant than aiwvoy or aréXevrov would be. The writer had just said, 
“‘ The Levitical priesthood admits or demands many (wAefovec) priests in 
succession, because death is continually removing them from office.” 
On the contrary, Christ being appointed to a perpetual priesthood, his 
office is here declared to be arapaBarne, i.e. it demands or admits no 
transition to another, no successor in his place. UapaGaivw means, to 
pass over, to pass on; and, when spoken of an office, it signifies, to pass 
into the hands of another person. ’Amapdparoc is, therefore, incapable 
of transition ; which is the very shade of meaning that the writer’s argu- 
ment demands. So Theophylact and CEcumenius: amapaBaror, acia- 


Soyer, without succession. 
2Dd2 


404 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 25. 


Ver. 25. “Oder wai cwlew.... O89, hence, also, he is able always to 
save those who draw nigh to God through him, i.e. approach the 
throne of grace (ch. iv. 16) in his name, or on his account, trusting in 
him as their priest and intercessor. "OSev, whence, i. e. because he is a 
perpetual priest. wey, to save, means here, to deliver from con- 
demnation and punishment. This the high priest did, in regard to God’s 
external government over the Jews, when he went into the most holy 
place, and made expiation for the sins of the people. Christ, as a priest 
in the heavenly world, is able to do this; and to do it, cic rd wayredéc, 
unceasingly, always, so long as there are any who need pardon, and 
who can obtain it. 

Tavrore Gov, ever living, i.e. always abiding or continuing a priest ; 
compare ver. 3. 8.17. 21. 24. Zaw, to live, to endure, to be perennial ; 
as frequently before. The mere continual existence of Christ is not at 
all the question here, but the perpetuity of his priesthood; so that lap 
plainly refers to his ever living or continuing as a priest, in which capa- 
city évrvyxavew trép hpay, as follows. 

Eic 70 évrvyyavéwy brép avroy, to intercede for them, or rather to 
interpose in their behalf. The proper meaning of évruyyavw is, to go 
to any one, to approach him, to meet him, for the sake of accusing, 
defending, convicting, or delivering any person, or of transacting any 
business which has respect to him. Here, it is plainly in the sense of 
aiding, defending, or delivering ; as the preceding owéew clearly indi- 
cates. It means here, also, to do something, or to interpose, in such a 
way as is appropriate to the priest’s office. But to intercede, in the 
sense of making supplication, is not appropriate to any part of the 
priests’ office under the Levitical law; at least, not to any which 
the Scriptures have presented to our view. The reader will search in 
vain for any direction to the priests, under the Jewish economy, to 
perform such a duty as priests; and all the testimony we have to show 
us that the priests did make intercession, is what Philo says of their 
duties, Legat. ad Caium. II. 77, p. 591, (edit. Mangey ;) see on ver. 27. 
Even the passage in Luke i. 9, 10, seems to indicate nothing that solves 
the question. We must, therefore, understand évruyyavev here, in a 
more general sense, and refer it to any aid which Christ as high priest 
extends to those who approach God, confiding in him, ch. iv. 16. He 
is able, owe abrove, because he is a perpetual priest, évrvyxaveu brep 
_avrav, i.e. to interpose in their behalf, to procure for them such aid as 
they may need. So the priests, under the Levitical dispensation, were 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 26 405 


the internuntit between God and the people, and procured blessings for 
them, not only by presenting the offerings which they brought, but by 
inquiring of the Lord for them, or consulting his holy oracle. I acquiesce, 
therefore, in the general idea of évrvyxavety here, viz. interposing in our 
behalf, assisting ; and I believe, that all attempts to draw from the 
word any thing more than this, is substituting imagination for well- 
grounded reasoning. 


The writer, having now commented on the priesthood of Christ as compared with 
that of Melchisedek, and having also made some deductions from the nature of Christ’s 
priestly office as thus exhibited, which are much to his purpose, resumes the subject 
which he had dropped at ch. v. 10, and which he had first proposed in ch. y. 2,3. In 
ch. v. 7—9, he had shown the similarity between Christ and the Jewish priests, in 
regard to the power of sympathizing with the suffering, inasmuch as both he and they 
were sufferers themselves. But he did not intend that the doSévera of the Jewish 
priests should be predicated of Jesus in all respects. To guard against this, our author 
again introduces the topic here, and shows how far superior the priest of the new 
covenant is, in a moral respect, to the priests of the old. 


Ver. 26. Towdroc yap iypiv emperey apxuepeve, moreover, such a high 
priest was needful for us. Tpérw signifies, ordinarily, that which is 
becoming, proper, fit. But here érpere seems plainly to be equivalent to 
TO avayxatov; as in Matt. ii. 15. So Luther, sollten wir haben, wz 
must have. So Ernesti, Calovius. 

“Oowoc, holy, not merely WTP here, but PJ¥, TOM, OVA; for moral, 
internal holiness or purity of nature is intended. “Axaxoc, harmless, 
qui malum non fecit, whose external conduct towards others corresponds 
with internal, dordrne. 

"Aplavroc, undefiled, has reference to the ceremonial purity which wa; 
peculiarly required of the Jewish high priests. *Ajéavroc has here, how- 
ever, a moral sense, and expresses, simmarily and with intensity, the 
ideas conveyed by éetoc and dxakos. Keywptopévog ard tev apaprwroy, 
separated from sinners, i. e. removed from all that could contaminate or 
render impure; diverse from sinners; unlike to them. It is nearly 
synonymous in its meaning with apéavroc, and is added (as is usual ia 
such cases with the sacred writers) for the sake of intensity. 

"YWijAorepoe TH ovpavey yevopevoc, exalted above the heavens, i. e. 
seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, ch. i. 3. Compare Phil. 
ii. 9. Colos. i. 18. Heb. ii. 9; viii. 1. Rev. v.12. Matt. xxv. 31. 


406 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 27, 28. 


By these assertions, the writer designs to show his Hebrew readers, 
that Christ was, in all personal respects. exalted above the Jewish high 
priests. They were “‘ compassed with infirmities,” but he was spotless ; 
if they were ceremonially undefiled, he was morally so; if they were 
placed in an exalted station, he was infinitely above them, being like 
Melchisedek, king as well as priest, inasmuch as he was raised to the 
throne of God above the heavens, ch. i. 3. To finish the comparison, 
he goes on to say, that, in consequence of his perfect purity, he needed 
no expiatory offering for himself, as the Jewish high priest did. 

Ver. 27. "Oc ovk Exer .... Aaov, who has not, like the high priests, any 
daily necessity of offering sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for 
those of the people. Many doubts have been raised by critics, about the 
meaning of xa’ jpéoay here, because they have supposed that the high 
priest officiated in person, only on the great day of atonement. But 
that these doubs are without any good ground, may be seen by consult- 
ing Lev. vi. 19—22. Numb. xxvii. 3,4. Philo, who was contemporary 
with the apostles, says, dpxtepeve, KaT& Tove vdpoue, évyae Cé Kai Svotac 
rehov Kas’ Exasny ipeépay, the high priest, agreeably to the laws, makes 
daily supplications and sacrifices, see on ver. 25. Jt happens im this 
case, as in all others of a like nature which occur in our epistle, that the 
deep and accurate knowledge of the writer, in respect to every thing 
which concerned the Jewish dispensation, becomes apparent, just in 
proportion to our knowledge of the usages which really existed under 
that dispensation. 

Totro yap .... aveviykae, for this he did, once for all, when he offered 
up himself. ’Avadépw is like the Heb. myn. IIpocgépw is also 
used in a similar sense. 

"Edda, literally for once, einmal ; but, according to usage, it denies 
a repetition of the act or thing to which it relates, and so means once 
for all. : 

Ver. 28. ‘O vépocg yup.... aoSévercay, now the law constitutes men 
high priests, who have infirmity. Tap may here mean truly, indeed ; 
but ‘the connexion is better kept up by the version which I have 
given it. 

"Exovrac &oSévecav, here means, those who have infirmity of a moral 
nature, i. e. who commit sin, who are sinners; so also in ver. 2. 

‘O Néyoc SE Spxupooiac . . « TeTerewpévor, but the word of the oath, 
which was subsequent to the law, [constitutes as high priest] the Son, 
who is for ever exalted to glory. ‘O dOyne rijc OpKopLugtac is the same as 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. l 407 


Spxoe, or dpkwpocia in ver. 20. The writer refers to Ps. cx. 4. The 
word of the oath, i. q. the oath that was uttered. 

Yidv cic rov aidva rereXecwpévov. On redevdw, see ch. ii. 10, redee@oae. 
I regard the expression as designed kere to convey, for substance, the 
idea of a state of the highest perfection and exaltation, which forbids the 
supposition that he can have such aoSévecay as the Jewish priests. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 1. Kepadauoy 0& exit rolc Neyopévorc, the most important thing, 
however, in regard to what we are now treating of, 7s. That xedadacov 
has such a meaning as is here assigned to it, is beyond any reasonable 
doubt. So Suidas, referring to this passage, says, Kepadauy, éxet, 70 
péyeatov. So Theophylact, on this verse, iva eimw ro péysoroy Kal ouven- 
rixwrepov, that I may say the greatest thing and the most comprehensive. 
So Theodoret understood cepadacov ; for he says, ry peyiorgy riyuns 
Tedevraiav Karédure, he reserved the greatest honour until the last. Sa 

*Philo, 70 Kedadauoy rev avdpGv rév ToNemor@y, the head of the warriors. 
So the classic authors also, as may be seen in Schneider, and in any 
good Greek Lexicon; to which may be added, many of the most dis- 
tinguished among late critics on our epistle, such as Zacharie, Michaélis, 
Heinrichs, Storr, Dindorf, Schulz, Iaspis, and others. The context, 
also, renders it quite plain, that such must be the meaning, and that 
kegadatoy does not here mean, sum, or summary, in the sense of recapi- 
tulation or contents: for what follows is no recapitulation of what pre- 
cedes, but a new topic, exhibiting a different attitude or view of Christ’s 
priesthood. In the preceding chapter, the apostle has treated of the 
superiority of Christ’s priesthood, in respect to duration and succession. 
He has shown, also, that Christ was made priest by the solemnity of an 
oath, while the Levites were not introduced to their office by such a 
solemnity. The priesthood of the latter was liable to continual inter- 
ruption and vicissitude, from the frail and dying state of those who were 
invested with the office of priest; while the perpetuity of Christ’s priestly 
office was never exposed to interruption from causes of this nature. 
Finally, the Jewish priests were themselves not only peccable, but 
peccant men, and needed to offer sacrifices on their own account, as well 
as for the sake of others; while Christ was holy, and perfectly free from 


408 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 1. 


all sin. and exalted to a glorious state in which he was placed for ever 
beyond the reach of it, so that his sacrifice would endure solely to the 
benefit of sinful men. 

Thus much the writer has already said, respecting the nature of the 
office conferred on Christ, and his qualifications to discharge the duties 
of it. He now comes, in ch. viil.—x., to the consideration of the duties 
themselves, viz. the nature of the sacrifice which Jesus offers; the place 
where it is offered ;_ the efficacy which it has, to atone for sin; and the 
difference, in regard to all these points, between the sacrifice offered 
by Christ, and that which was presented by the Jewish priests. This 
topic, then, differs from those which were discussed in ch. vil. Kega- 
Aaov, therefore, does not mean recapitulation here, although there can 
be no doubt that the word itself is capable of conveying such a sense, 
if the nature of the case demanded it. 

Moreover, from the circumstances just presented, it is evident that 
what follows is the Kegadawr, principal thing, which belongs to the 
topic of the writer. The dignity of an office, and the particular quali- 
fications of the person who is to be invested with it, are things which 
in their own nature are subordinate to the great end which is to be 
accomplished by the office itself. They are only subordinate means* 
of bringing about the end of the office; while this end or design 
itself, must, from its own nature, be regarded as the prenczpal thing, 
Kepadauoy. 

"Ext roic Aeyopévorc, in respect to, &c. That éi often has this sense, 
may be seen in the lexicons. Aeyopévorc, present participle passive, 
means, the subjects now spoken upon or discussed. Towvroy apxtepea. 
such a priest, viz. as had been described in the preceding chapter ; see 
ch. vii. 26. 

“Oc éxdSucer év bekig, x. 7. X., see on ch. i. 3. ult. It is quite possible, 
that the writer, in using ék4$cce here, may intend tacitly to introduce a 
comparison between Christ as a priest, performing the duties of his 
office, seated on a throne of majesty, and the high priest of the Jews, 
who, in the discharge of all the duties of his function, stood before the 
Lord. But I do not think the point clear enough to be insisted on. 
Thus much is clear, viz. that the writer means to show the very great 
difference between Christ and the Jewish high priest, by adverting to 
the fact, that the one is seated on the throne of God in the heavens, 
while the other orly ministers on earth, in a temple reared by the hands 
of men. This last idea he proceeds more fully to develop in— 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 2, 3. 409 


Ver. 2. Tov ayiwy detrovpyoc, a minister of the sanctuary, i. e. of 
the adytum, sanctum sanctorum WIHT ; in other words, the high 
priest of the temple above, having access to wap, the holy, or most 
holy place. ‘Ayiwy may also mean, of holy things, i. €. ayiwy adnSe- 
vov, of the truly sacred or holy things in heaven. But I prefer the 
former sense; as the comparison thus becomes more direct with the 
Jewish high priest. Ae:rovpydc means, a public minister, qui publicis 
officiis preest, vel. munera publica prestat. Says Ulpian, the Scho- 
liast upon Demosth. contra Septin., Aetrov, éxadovy of maaot To dnpd- 
cwv, what was public, the ancients called deirov. The ending -ovpydc 
comes from the verb épyev, opero, officio fungor. 

Kat rie oxnvig tie aAnSuvijc, the true tabernacle, means, that which 
is spiritual, immutable, and eternal in the heavens; and which there- 
fore is called true or real, in distinction from the earthly tabernacle 
that was made by the hands of men, and was of materials earthly 
and perishable. The tabernacle in heaven is the substance; that on 
earth, the image or type. Hence the former is, by way of distinction, 
properly named a\nSuvijc, 1. e. real, or that which truly and perma- 
nently exists. 

What is intimated by this appellation, is now more fully expressed. 
“Hy exniev 6 Kipwoc, cat ok avSpwroc, which the Lord constructed or 
reared, and not man; 1. e. the true or heavenly tabernacle is not 
material, was not formed by human architects, but reared by the im- 
mediate power of God. Whether the writer means here to speak of an 
actual heavenly structure, having physical form and location, is a ques- 
tion which will be brought up by ver. 5, below. 

Ver. 3. lace yap apxuepeve ...... Kadiorarar, now every high priest 
is appointed to present oblations and sacrifices; i.e. it enters into the 
very nature of such an office, that duties of this kind must be performed 
by him who sustains it ; see the original proposition of this subject, in 
ch. v. 1. Adpa, oblations or gifts that were without blood; such as 
the first-fruits of grain, vegetables, &c. Oveiac, animals slain for 
sacrifice. Both were presented to God by the priest, who acted as the 
internuntius between Jehovah and the offerer. 

“OSev dvaykaiov .....+ mpocevéykn, whence, it is necessary that this 
[high priest] also have some offering to present; i. e. if Christ be high 
priest, and if such an office is necessarily connected with the duty of 
presenting some offering, then Christ, of course, must present one 


410 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 4, 5. 


What the oblation made by Christ is, he tells us more fully in ch. ix. 
11—14, 25. 26. 

Ver. 4. The apostle proceeds to show the reason, why Christ is a 
priest in the tabernacle above, and not in that on earth. Ei péy yap 
HV eeeeee Owpa, but if he were on earth, then he could not be a priest, 
because there are priests appointed by law, who present oblations 
according to the law. The argument is thus: “ The Scripture calls 
Christ, ieoede eig roy ai@va; but this he could not be on earth, inas- 
much as there are already. iepeic there, by divine appointment; conse- 
quently, he is ‘epeve in the temple above, and must present his offering 
there. Adpa means here oblations of every kind, comprehending the 
same things as d#pa re kat Suaiag in ver. 3. 

Ver. 5. Oirivec vrodetypart ...... éxovpaviwy, the same who perform 
service in [that tabernacle which is] a mere copy of the heavenly [sanc- 
tuary.] Compare ver. 2, and ch. ix. 24. ‘Yzddevypa means, image, 
effigy, copy, resemblance, imitation ; all designating the idea, that the 
earthly temple stands related to the heavenly one, only as a painting or 
picture of any thing does to the object itself. The heavenly oxyyi is 
aAnSuo¢ 3 the earthly one, oxcapa. 

Xa, shadow, slight and imperfect image, sketch: distinct from 
eixov, a picture completed, an accurate resemblance. It is also the cor- 
relate antithesis of cdma, body ; see Col. il. 17. Xx I have construed 
as qualifying vrodetypart, and rendered both words, mere copy, i. e. I 
have construed them as a Hendiadys. The meaning is, that it is only a 
resemblance, i. e. the earthly tabernacle is but a shadow, a mere imper- 
fect effigy, of the heavenly one. Consequently, the office of priest in 
the latter, is far more elevated than the like office in the former. 

Toy érovparviwy, 1. e. dyiwy, sanctuary. So in ver. 2, dyiwy Xecroup- 
yo, 1. €. dyiwy [réxwy] Aetroupyoc, a minister of the holy of holies, 
or, of the most holy place. 

KaSic yonpariorar ...... dpet, for Moses, when about to huild the 
tabernacle, was divinely admonished ; ‘‘ See now,” said he, ‘‘ that thou 
make all things according to the pattern showed thee in the mount.” 

XpnpariZw means, to give oracular responses, or, to make communica- 
tions to men in any supernatural way. It is spoken, actively, of God, 
and not of men. So Phavorinus, ypnparigew, Aéyerar ext Oewy" ro oe 
duadéyeoSat, éxi avSpHrwy. In the passive voice (as here) it means, fo 
receive divine responses or communications, of any kind. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 6, 7. 4I1 


"Emcredely, to complete, finish, perform, do, make. noi, viz. God 
saith, in Exod. xxv. 40: compare Exod. xxv. 9; xxvi. 30; xxvil. 8. 
Numb. viii. 4. 1 Chron. xxviii. 11.19. Acts vii. 44. The Hebrew word, 
to which rvzov here corresponds, is IAM, model, sketch, delineation, 
form. Tiroc means, model or form here ; as it often does. “Ope: refers 
to Mount Sinai; for it was during the theophany there, that commu- 
nications were made to Moses on the subject of building the tabernacle ; 
see Exod. xxiv. 18: compare ch. xxv. 9. 40; xxx1. 18; xxx. 1. See 
Excursus XY. 

Ver. 6. Nuvi 6€ Stagopwrépag rérevye etrovpyiac, but now has he 
obtained a service of a more excellent nature; i.e. since he is nota 
priest in the earthly temple, but in the heavenly one, he has an office 
[réow] Seagopwrépa, [so much] more exalted, viz. than that of the Levi- 
tical priests. 

"Oow kat... pecirnc, as much more, as the covenant, of which he 
ts the mediator, is superior [to the ancient one,] being sanctioned with 
better promises. ldcm must be understood in the clause preceding this, 
viz. wéo@ Ccapopwrépac, in order to make out the comparison which its 
correlate do implies, in the latter. NevoyoSérnrac, is sanctioned, 1. e. is 
promulgated and established with all the solemnity and stability of a 
law. The better promises follow, viz. in ver. 8—13. The imperfection 
of the first covenant, and the perfection of the second, is disclosed 
further, in ch. ix. 9—14; x. 1—22; xiii. 9—14. From these passages 
it appears, that the first covenant promised only external purification, 
and the civil or ecclesiastical pardon of an offender who complied with 
the rites which it enjoined; but under the new covenant, real pardon of 
sin by God is to be obtained, with purification and peace of conscience, 
the hope of eternal life, and union at last with the assembly of the 
redeemed in a better world. 

The sentiment of the apostle, then, in our verse, stands thus: ‘* The 
office with which Christ is invested as a priest, or his priestly function, 
is as much superior to that of the Levitical priests, as the covenant 
under which he holds his office excels, in the blessings which it pro- 
mises, the covenant introduced by Moses.” 

Ver. 7. Ei yap }) rpwrn . . . todoc, moreover, if that first [covenant | 
had been faultless, then no place for the second would have been 
sought. ‘H xpwrn, sc. dvaSijxn, means here, the Jewish dispensation or 
economy. “Apepmrroc, without ,ault, free from defect. The meaning Is, 
not that the Mosaic economy had positive faults, viz. such things as were 


412 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 8. 


palpably wrong or erroneous ; but that it did not contain in itself all the 
provision necessary for pardon of sin, and the rendering of the con- 
science peaceful and pure; which the gospel does effect. See on ch. 
vii. 19, and compare ch. ix. 9—14. 23.24; x. 1—3. 10—14. The law, 
then, was not réAewoc, i. €. Gpeurroc; nor was it designed to be any 
thing more than a dispensation preparatory to the gospel. 

’Efnretro roroc, no room had been sought, or, no provision had been 
made, for a second, i. e, for a new covenant, or, the gospel dispensation. 

Ver. 8. Mepdopevoc yap abroic Néyer, but, finding fault [with the first 
covenant,| he says to them, i. e. the Jews. The passage is capable of 
another construction, viz. finding fault with them, i.e. the Jews; in 
which way a majority of the commentators, with Chrysostom, have 
understood it, Méydouae can undoubtedly govern airoic in the dative ; 
but still I prefer the other construction. The apostle says, “‘ The former 
covenant was not dpepymroc.” He goes on to prove this: but how? by 
quoting a passage from Jer. xxxi. 31—34. But what does this passage 
contain? Méyerat, says the apostle, 1. q. peupduevoc Eort, i. e. it 
affirms that the law is not dpeuaroc; for these two words are plainly 
connected as antitheses, by the writer. If so, then pejdpevoc applies 
to daSh«n, and not to airoic; and so I understand it. If the ellipsis be 
supplied, it will read, peppdpevoc abr sc. duathen. In such a case, 
avrote is governed by dé yet. 

In addition to the argument thus drawn from the writer’s purpose, I 
would also suggest, that the whole of Jer. xxxi., which precedes the 
passage quoted, is made up of consolation and promise, instead of 
reproof or finding fault. The imputation of defect, then, must be such 
an imputation, in this case, as is implied in the passage quoted. But in 
this, the declaration that a new covenant should supersede the old one, 
implies, of course, that the old one had failed to accomplish all the 
objects to be desired, i. e. it was defective. 

The apostle evidently understands the passage quoted, as originally 
having respect to the gospel dispensation ; nor can I perceive any good 
reason why it should not be so understood. There is the same objec- 
tion, that any prophecy whatever should be understood as having regard 
to this dispensation, as there would be to this being so understood ; 
consequently, there is sufficient reason why this should be understood 
as the apostle has explained it, unless we reject altogether the idea, 
that any truly prophetic declarations of such a nature can and do 
exist. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 8. 413 


‘1dov Hpépae ....-. Kawnjy, behold the days are coming, sath the 
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah. ’Iéov corresponds to the Hebrew 37, and 
is used to excite the particular attention of the persons who are Adldaeseed 
to any thing or subject. It is Hebraism, and not of classic usage; at 
least not in any measure so frequently employed in the classics, as by 
the writers of the New Testament. ’Iéov is accented on the ultimate, 
to mark it as an adverb, and to distinguish it from tdov 2. aor, imp. of 
the verb evdw. 

“Hyéoae epxovrae is equivalent to the Hebrew O'NA OND, which is 
used indefinitely for any future period, whether near or remote. The 
simple meaning of the expression is, ‘‘ At some future period I will 
make,” &c. 

"Ent rov oixov onan Kat emt roy oixoy “Iovca, i. q. in Hebrew 
ON Tw) apilan Ma, 1. e. house, family, tribe, or nation of Judah 
en israel. The meaning is, with all the twelve tribes, i. e. the whole 
of the Hebrew nation. “Emi rév oixoy, i. q. ext r@ otkw, see Wahl’s 
Lexicon on ézi, No. 8.a. In the Septuagint, the passage reads, kai 
dtaSjoopar TO oikw “lopajd Kal 7O olkw "lobvda Cvadhxny cacy. 

AvaShxny is commonly employed by the LXX., in order to translate 
#2, The general idea of cuaSijxn is, disposition or arrangement of 
any kind, or in regard to any matter; from the verb cca7iSnpu, to dis- 
pose of, to arrange. Hence, it is sometimes employed by classic writers, 
in the sense of fedus, compact, or covenant between two parties; but 
not so in the New Testament. Like the Hebrew 3, (to which, 
according to the usus loqguendi of the New Testament, it generally cor- 
responds,) it often means law, precept; even particular precept, as in 
Acts vii. 8, the precept of circumcision ; in Rom. ix. 4, ai dvaSijcar, the 
tables of the law, i. e. the ten commandments ; compare Deut. iv. 13, 
where 2 is explained by OMIT NTY, the ten commandments ; 
compare also Deut. ix. 9. 11. So Heb. ix. 4, KyBwrov rite Cvadhkne, the 
ark which contained the dcadijxcny, i. e. the two tables of the ten com- 
mandments, (i. q. mn ma WIN, Numb. x, 33;) and afterward, in 
the same verse, ai Ae ae Sua Si nkne, the [stone] tablets containing 
the ten commandments. The general idea of law, precept, statute, is 
very commonly annexed to A in Hebrew, where the Septuagint 
renders it by duaSinn; e. g. Exod. xix. 5, et al. sepe. Both in classic 
authors, and in the New Testament, it has also the meaning of last will, 
testament ; e. g. Gal. iii. 15. Heb. ix. 16, 17. 


4i4 COMMENTARY ON HER. VIII. 9. 


Most frequently of all, is FID in the Old Testament, and ccaShey 
in the New, employed to designate a promise, compact, or agreement 
on the part of God with his people, that, on condition of doing thus 
and so, blessings of such and such a nature shall be bestowed upon 
them. It comes, in this way, very commonly to designate the whole 
Jewish economy, (as we call it,) with its conditions and promises; and 
by the writers of the New Testament it is employed, in a similar way, to 
designate the new economy or dispensation of Christ, with all its con- 
ditions and promised blessings. Thus, 4 wada& or xpwrn dcaSiixn 
means, the Jewish dispensation ; and ¥ caw ciaS4jen means, the Chris- 
tian dispensation. The idea often annexed by readers to the word cove- 
nant, viz. mutual compact, and a quid pro quo in respect to each of the 
parties, is not the scriptural one. The meaning altogether predominant 
is an arrangement on the part of God in respect to men, in consequence 
of which certain blessings are secured to them by his promise, on con- 
dition that they comply with the demands which he makes, i. e. obey his 
precepts. AcaSixn, then, embraces both precept and promise ; and may 
be used for either, or for both at the same time, pro re natd; and it 
often is so used in the Old Testament, and also in the New. 

In our text, CaSieny cay means, a new arrangement or disposition 
made by Christ, i. e. one which has, in some respects, new conditions 
and new promises. 

Ver. 9. Ob Kara rv Geadhxny, Kk. 7. X. This clause is explanatory of 
the word cay in the preceding verse. The meaning is, ‘“‘ The covenant 
which I will make, at a future period, with the Jewish nation, (i. e. the 
dispensation under which I will place them,) shall be different from that 
which I made, when I brought them out of Egypt.” 

"Ey jypépa érraopévou prov tiie yewwdc airway, Heb. ov PUT Diva, 
Xewpoc, in the genitive, is governed by the force of émi in composition 
with NaGopuévov; so éxitapPdvey rije xetpdc, to take by the hand, to 
lead, &c. ’Efayayety, to bring or lead out, zic ro being understood 
before the infinitive here. Both words together mean, asszsted or helped 
to come out. This clause is added by the writer, in order to show 
plainly, that he means the draSijxnv, which was made when Moses led 
the Israelites out of Egypt, through the wilderness, toward Canaan. 

“Ore airol ovx évépecvay éy Th Cralhen pov, because they did not keep 
my covenant. The Hebrew is, 2 ON DT M27 WR, because 
they violated my covenant, i. e. failed to perform the cone gn which 
I promised to bestow blessings upon them. The Greek ob« évéyervay is 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 10. 41s: 


a version ad sensum, but not ad literam. Meévw or éupévw means, 
among other things, to persevere, to be constant, to continue firm, or 
stedfast in any thing. The Greek expression, ove évépeway is softer 
than 3757; and as ovk gueway conveys, for substance, the same idea 
as 7577, we may well suppose it was preferred to a stronger expression 
by the writer of our epistle, while he was addressing himself to his Jew- 
ish brethren. “Ore ovk évépervay assigns a reason why a new covenant 
was to be made, viz. because the old one is broken, and because it has 
not been kept on the part of the Jews, and will not be kept, therefore a 
new one, on different conditions and with better promises, shall be made. 
K¢ye ijpednoa airév, Hebrew D2 mya 122N1, (English Version) 
although I was an husband to them ; 4 Gesenius, “auikougire Iwas their 
Lord; both according to a sense of 2a, which is a usual one. But 
that the Septuagint have given a correct version here, and the apostle 


4dd 


properly adopted it in our text, is very probable. The Arabic Y de 
(2 292) means, to loath, to reject with loathing ; see Castell Lex. on 


ata 


Je. In this sense, it is probable, ay mya is used in Jer. xxxi. 32, and, 
as some think, in Jer. iii. 14. So Abul Walid, Joseph Kimchi, and 
Rabbi Tanchum, understood the word in ch. xxxi. 32; and in like 
manner many modern critics. The Greek #pédnoa means, to neglect, 
to disregard, to treat with neglect, and is, (like obk évépeway) a 
softer expression than the corresponding Hebrew one, while it conveys 
for substance the same idea. The Septuagint, in their rendering of 
a MIVA appear to have preserved an ancient meaning of the word 
bya, the correctness of which the Arabic is a pledge for, at the present 
time. 

The disregarding, or treating with neglect (jpédeca,) here spoken 
of, has reference to the various punishments inflicted upon Israel for 
their wickedness, instead of the blessings which they would have re- 
ceived, had they been obedient. 

Ver. 10. “Ore arn f cuaSiixn . . . Kuptoc, but this is the covenant 
which I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith 
the Lord. “Ore but, so the Hebrew 3, Ps. xliv. 23; cxxx. 4. Job 
xiv. 16, al. The Lexicons are imperfect in regard to this word, Otkw 
‘Iopai\, house of Israel in this verse means, the Jews in general, the 
Israelitish nation, for so the whole nation is often named, in the Old 
Testament and in the New. 

Avdove vopove prov €ic¢ Tiyy Sidvotay avrav, I will put my laws upon their 


416 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 11. 


mind, Hebrew Da P2. For ddove, the Septuagint has adove dwaw, 
meaning, I suppose, deeply infix. This sense of d/dwpu comes from the 
Hebrew DI; see Wahl on édwpe, No. 8. Arcove, like the present 
participle in Hebrew, is used for the future cwow. To place or put 
laws upon their minds, of course means to inscribe or engrave them, 
as it were, i. e. deeply to infix them. Kal éri capdiac atrov Exvypdaw 
avrove, and I will enyrave them upon their hearts, or, inscribe them 
upon their hearts ; an expression parallel to the preceding, and of the 
same import. The meaning of both is, I will give them a lasting spirit 
of obedience to my laws, so that they will no more violate them as they 
have done; i. e. the new covenant shall be distinguished from the old, 
by a higher and more permanent spirit of obedience in those who live 
under it. 

Kai goopat airoic - . . adv, and I will be their God, and they 
shall be my people; i.e. I will grant them peculiar protection and 
blessings, and they shall be peculiarly obedient and devoted to me. 
Compare Rev. xxi. 3, 4. 7. Zech. vill. 8. For the meaning of the 
Hebrew idiom, eic Gedy and eic adv, see on Heb. i. 5. 

Ver. 11. Kal ob pu) Cdadovaw .... Kupiov, no one shall teach his own 
fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord. For 
roy wodéirny, various manuscripts and editions have roy zAnotov. The 
original Hebrew is, WN TY IT92) NI YTNTAN WNIAYT NN which, 
interpreted. agreeably to a well-known Hebrew idiom, means simply, 
one shall not teach another ; for WN and Y7 as well as WN and YON 
simply denote each other, or one another, when thus coupled together. 
Toy roXirny, in our text, corresponds to the Hebrew PY; and this 
word the Septuagint almost always render by wdnaioy. This is the 
ground, probably, why the reading zAnoiov has been preferred by Ben- 
gel, Carpzoff, and some other critics. But rodérny is in the best manu- 
scripts; and Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthie, Rosenmiiller, Knapp, Hein- 
richs, Tittmann, and others, prefer it. The Septuagint, moreover, ren- 
der Y9 by zoXirne, in Proy. xi. 9; xxiv. 28. Whether, however zre- 
ciov or modirny be adopted, the sense is not changed. The meaning 
of the whole phrase, is simply what the Hebrew idiom allows it to 
signify, viz. “‘ One shall have no need to teach another.” The repe- 
tition of the sentiment, by rdv rodirny abrov and roy adedgov airov, 
belongs merely to the poetic parallelism of the original Hebrew, which 
expresses the same thought in two different ways, as is constantly done 
by the synonymous parallelisms of the Old Testament, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIit. 12. ya 


“Ore mavreg . . . peyuhou airéy, for all shall know me, from the 
least to the greatest, i.e. all of whatever rank or condition, high ox 
low, rich or poor—all classes of people, shail have a knowledge of God. 
Mexpod and peyadov here refer to condztion, rather than age. 

The writer does not mean that religious instruction will be altogether 
superseded, when the happy period arrives of which he speaks; but 
that, inasmuch as the laws of God will be infixed upon the hearts of 
his people, and engraven upon their minds, none will be ignorant, as 
in former times, of his true character and the requirements of his law. 
The words are not to be urged to a literal explanation. The meaning 
of the whole plainly is, that the knowledge of true religion, or of God, 
should become universal, under the new covenant, so that no one might 
be found, who could properly be addressed as knowing ncthing of the 
true God. The implication, moreover, contained in this, is, that under 
the old covenant many had been thus ignorant; a fact highly credible, 
considering the frequent lapses of the Jews into a state of idolatry. 

Ver. 12. "Ore tAewe Ecouar... ere, for I will be merciful in respect to 
their iniquities, and their sins and their transgressions will I remember 
no more. “IXewe, propitious, mild, clement, governs the dative rave 
aouiac, and (like moor to which it corresponds) designates the idea of 
readiness to pardon, or, to deal mildly with offenders. 

Téy avopi@y abréy is not in the Hebrew, nor in the common Septuagint, 
nor Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic. The Hebrew has only DnNOT?, 
to which 7éy dpapriay avrov answers, in our text. It is difficult, or rather 
impossible, now to determine whether rév dvopidy abréy was originally 
inserted by the writer of our epistle, or crept in afterwards from some 
edition of the Septuagint which contained it. But whether it be 
admitted or excluded, it makes no difference in the sentiment of the 
passage ; the first clause of which is the first member of a poetic parallel- 
ism, to which the second clause corresponds, echoing the same senti- 
ment. "DNewe elvat raic aduccaic means, to be forgiving, ready to pardon ; 
and od prnoOijvart@y avopumy means, to pass sins by unpunished, to treat 
offenders as though their sins were forgotten. The expression applied to 
God, is altogether anthropopathic ; but so are most other expressions 
which speak of him as acting in relation to such subjects. 

Thus far the quotation from Jeremiah, in order to prove that a new 
covenant, better than the Mosaic one, was to be made with the people of 
God. The writer now adds, as a comment on what he had quoted— 

25 


418 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 1. 


Ver. 13. "Ev 7@ Neyer... . pwTNY, In Saying a new [covenant,] he 
represents the first [covenant] as old. Of course, if a new one is to 
take the place of the former one, the former is considered as obsolete. 
Meradaiwxe, like the Hebrew Piel and Hiphil, means ¢o represent a thing 
as old, or, as superannuated ; for in no other sense did the words just 
quoted make the former covenant old. 

Now follows the deduction of the apostle from this. To 6€ radatot- 
pevov.... apariopov, now that which has become old, and is advancing 
in age, is near to dissolution. Tadacdw is more usually applied to things, 
and ynpaoxw to persons. The use of two synonymous words here, serves 
merely to strengthen the representation, and is equivalent to saying, 
** That which is very old.” 

’Agariopov, literally, disappearing, vanishing. Applied to a law or 
dispensation, it means abolition or abrogation. The argument of the 
writer is thus: ‘* What is very old is near dissolution ;” but the prophet 
Jeremiah has represented the former covenant as zeradaoupévny ; 
therefore it is near dissolution, or, it is about to be dissolved or 
abrogated. 


CHAPTER IX. 


For an illustration of the course of thought and reasoning in this 
chapter, see above, p. 351, seq. 

Ver. 1. Eiye pév ovk kal } xpwrn . . . Koopuxdv, moreover, the first 
[covenant] also had ordinances of service and a sanctuary of a worldly 
nature. Ovy, a sign of transztion here, for a new subject is introduced. 
The force of cai here, is not easily described. I join it with eiye thus, 
<¢ Besides what I have said about the first covenant, let me add, that 
elye kai, 2 also had ordinances,” &c. All three particles, péy ody 
cal, might be rendered, and besides, and further, and I may add, &c. ; 
but I prefer the manner in which I have rendered them. As to péy, it 
is the mere sign of protasis ; see below, on ver. 11. 

‘H xpwrn, i. e. OcaShen, compare ch. vill. 6, 7,13; not 4 rpwrn oxnrn, 
as some critics have supposed. 

Ackawpara Narpeiac Means, a service arranged, conducted, by rules 
or ordinances. Aarpeia designates the public service of the temple or 
tabernacle; and duamwpara, the rules or precepts which regulated it 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 2. 419 


Aywy usually means sanctuary or holy place, in a general sense, and 
so it may be taken here, viz. for the whole temple. But it may also 
be understood, as referring to that spacious apartment of the temple, 
in which the various articles of sacred furniture were placed that are 
immediately mentioned, which, however, is called by the writer, déy:a, 
in ver. 2. If it be the same as &ya, it is distinguished from éyta 
syiwy, in the third verse ; which means the apartment behind the veil, 
where the ark, &c. were deposited, Koopuxdy (from xéopoc) means, 
pertaining to this world, of a terrestial nature, 1. e. material, the 
opposite of ob yeiporoinroy in ch. ix. 11, 24, and 1. q. xetporoinroy ; the 
opposite also, of ‘Iepovoadip érovpareoc, ch. xii. 22; compare Rev. 
xxl. 2. Some critics have explained xoopuxdy by formosum, illustre, 
because kécpoc sometimes signifies ornatus,elegantia. But the adjective 
which designates the meaning correspondent with these significations, 
is koopuoc, and not KoopeKoe. 

Ver. 2. Zen) yap... mpwrn, for an outer tabernacle was con- 
structed. xn) evidently means here, only one apartment of the tepor 
or sacred building ; compare ver. 3, where another ocnyy is described. 
‘H xpwrn means, that which first presents itself, viz. to the worship- 
per as he enters the outer court of the building; therefore outer oxnyy 
or apartment, the most holy place being the zmner one. We might 
expect, according to the rules laid down by grammarians concerning 
the Greek article, that either exni) would have the article, or zpory 
would omit it. Constructions, however, of the same kind as oxy} 7 
apwrn are frequent in the New Testament; e. g. Rom. i. 9. dySpamov - 
rov épyazopévov; ch. il. 14, E3vy re 2... po Exovra; ch. v. 5, rvevpa- 
Toc &ylov Tov doSévroc. See Rom. viii. 33, 34. 1 Cor. ii. 7. Gal. ni. 21. 
1 Thess. i. 10. 1 Tim. vi. 13. 2 Tim. i. 8, 9. 14. Heb. vi. 7, &c. See 
Gersdorf’s Beitrage, p. 355, seq. It happens in this case, (as in regard 
to most of the definite rules laid down about the use of the Greek 
article,) that investigation shows the principle assumed to be by no 
means uniform, and that the Greek writers were less regular in regard 
to this matter, than the grammarians would fain have us believe. For 
the dimensions, &c. of the various oxnval, or apartments of the temple, 
see 1 Kings vi. 

"Ev 7) ] re Nuyvia .22~ dprwy, in which [apartment] was the candle- 
stick, and the table, and the show-bread. For a description of the 
candlestick, see Exod. xxv. 31—39; xxxvii. 17—24. The Hebrew 
word answering to Avxvia, is AVI. The rparega is described in 

2E2 


420 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 3. 


Exod. xxv. 23—39. The design of the table was, that the bread which 
was consecrated to the Lord might be placed upon it. TpdéSnow rev 
dprwy, the exhibition of the bread, viz. before Jehovah, is described 
in Exod. xxv. 30, and Lev. xxiv. 5—9. The earlier Hebrew name 
was 0°57 on), presence-bread. It is also called om? TW, and 
NaN rod, the arrangement of bread, or, the bread ‘arranged, int 
reference to the manner in which it was exhibited upon the table; see 
Lev. xxiv. 5, 6. 

The altar of incense is omitted in this catalogue of sacred utensils ; 
as it is omitted in the draft for building the tabernacle by Moses, in 
Exod. xxv. But it is mentioned in Exod. xxx. 1, and xxxvii. 25—28 ; 
xxxv. 15. So also the altar of burnt-offering is omitted, in Exod. xxv. 
although it is mentioned in Exod. xxxv. 16; xxxvill. 1; and many 
other utensils of the tabernacle also are omitted in Exod xxv. which are 
mentioned in Exod. xxxv. Our author expressly says (ch. ix. 5,) that 
he shall not attempt to mention all the particulars of the sacred 
apparatus for the temple service. 

“Hric déyerar Gyea, which is called aya, lane: wp, Wap, the 
holy place, the sanctuary ; a different apartment in the ‘epoy or sacred 
enclosure, from the &y.a ayéwy mentioned in ver. 3. “Aya in our text, 
is plural ; for the singular feminine is written ayia, (with the accent on 
the penult.,) not ayca. The writer means to say that } oxyy} xpwrn ; 
the outer apartment, of the temple, was called aya. The plural is 
used here in order to designate one apartment in the temple, just as 
it is in aya Gylwy (not ayia dyiwy,) ver. 3; and both are conformed 
to a usage that is common in Hebrew, which not unfrequently employs 
the plural to designate the sanctuary. E. g uP sex ghar ONT wy 122, 
i.e. d&yta Ocov. Ps. Ixviil. 36, WIRD, ay oov. Lev. xxi. “93. 
WAP, dyua prov, &c. : 

Mise, "3. Mera ¢ rd devrepov kararéracpa, and behind the second veil. 
A description of this veil is given, in Exod. xxvi. 31—33; xxxvi. 35, 
36. As the inner veil is here called devrepov, the necessary implication 
is, that there was a mpdrov also, and accordingly we find it described 
in Exod. xxvi. 36, 37; and Exod. xxxvi. 37, 38. The Hebrew name 
of the inner veil (which separated the most holy place from the &yra 
or common sanctuary,) is n>», as given in Exod. xxvi. 31—33, and 
in the corresponding Exod. xxxvi. "35, 36; also Lev. xvi. 2. The Hebrew 
name of the owter veil, which served as a door for the tabernacle, i. e. 
which covered the entrance passage to the first aycov, is ‘Jor. The former 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 4. 42] 


is called xarawéraopa by the Septuagint, (as the apostle calls it in our 
text.) in Exod. xxvi. 31. 33. Lev. xvi. 2. Exod. xxxvi. 35, and alsa 
by the evangelists, Matt. xxvii. 58. Mark xv. 38. The latter, both 
cararéracpa and éxiamaorpoy, in the passages connected with those just 
cited. There was a third external covering or curtain for the taber- 
nacle, (called my mn, in Exod. xxvi. 1, 2. seq.,) which Dindorf 
says was a third veil; ‘put mvhich manifestly, Paul does not reckon 
to be such; nor Moses, in the passages above cited. 

Lenvh i Aeyouervyn tyra ayiwy, the apartment which ts called the holy 
of holies, i.e. the most holy place, i. q. OWIPT wip, a common 
form of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote zntensety. In regard 
to } Aeyouévyn, after oxnyy without the article, see on 4 zpwrn above. 
KareoxevaoSn is understood after cxny)3; see in ver. 2, where it is 
expressed. The inner sanctuary was called most holy, because there 
was the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, &c.; and there the pre- 
sence of Jehovah, (which the Jews in later times called MQW.) 
was peculiarly manifested, so that this was regarded as his particular 
dwelling place, Ay, 

Ver. 4. Xpvooty tyoura Supuaripiwr, containing the golden censer. 
See Excursus XVI. 

Kai rijv xiBwrov .... xovolw, and the ark of the covenant, covered 
onevery part with gold.  Kifjwroe was a coffer or chest, made of 
wood, and covered with lamine of gold; a description of which is 
given in Exod. xxv. 1O—16; xxxvii. 1—5. It is called the ark of 
the covenant, because in it were deposited the two tables of the cove- 
nant, (3, see on dvaSjxny in ch. viii. 8. and compare Deut. iv. 13; 
ix. 9.115) which tables are also called the two tables of testimony, 
i.e. of statutes, FYTWDI 1, nn? Ww, Exod. xxxi. 18. Both the terms 
mya and Nyy plainly mean, wide statutes, or precepts, in this case, 
and both refer principally to the ten commandments; see 1 Kings 
viii. 9, and Deut. x. 1—5. 2 Chron. v. 10; vi. 11. 

"Ev 7 ordpvog xpvon exovoa TO pavva, in which [ark] was a golden 
pot containing the manna. The fact to which this alludes, is described 
in Exod. xvi. 32—34; where the ordpvoc is called simply N38. 
that is, pot, urn, vessel for safe keeping. Nothing is said, in- 
deed, of its being golden in the Hebrew; but the Septuagint render 
FSIS, by ordpvor xpvaovv. Of the fact that it was so, no one will be 
Ge aceea to doubt, who reads a description of the furniture of the 
most holy place, and finds that almost every thing within it was either 


42% COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 5. 


pure gold, or was overlaid with gold: e. g. the ark, Exod. xxv. 11; 
the mercy-seat, ch. xxv. 17; the cherubim, ch. xxv. 18; the pillars 
and hooks for the veil that separated the inner sanctuary from the 
other, ch. xxxvi. 31, 32. Who now can rationally suppose, that the 
urn containing manna, and the censer used on the great day of atone- 
ment, were not also golden? See Excursus XVII. 

Mayvva ; see on this word, Rosenmiiller, on Exod. xvi. 15; where the 
various derivations of the word are considered ; the various species of 
manna described; and the fact shown, that the supply of this food 
for the Israelites in the wilderness, was understood, by the writer of 
the narration in Exodus, to be miraculous. 

Kal ¥ paBcoc ’Aapwy 4 PAaorhoaca, and the rod of Aaron which 
budded. See Numb. xvii. 1—10, and what is said respecting this rod 
and the pot of manna, in Excursus XVII. 

Kal ai mddkee rijg SvaSdixne, the tables of the covenant, means the 
stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, and 
which were deposited in the ark, Exod. xxxi. 88; xxxii. 16; xxxiv. 28, 
where the words of the covenant are expressly said to be the ten 
commandments ; Deut. x. 1, 2. 1 Kings viii. 9. 2 Chron. v.10. The 
writer asserts, therefore, that the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, and 
the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, 
were all laid up originally in the cPwroc. 

Ver. 5. ‘Yrepdvw O€ airijc yepovPip, .... TO ihaarhpwoyv, and over it 
[the ark] were splendid cherubim, which overshadowed the covering 
of the ark. See the description of the cherubim in Exod. xxv. 18—20. 
1 Kings viii, 6, 7. 1 Chron. xxvii. 18. That cherubim were symbo- 
lical images or representations, is quite plain from comparing the 
various descriptions given of them in different passages of scripture ; 
e. g. Exod. xxv. 18—20; xxvi. 31. 1 Kings vi. 23—39. 32; and 
Ezek. i. and x. particularly ch. x. 20—22. I understand the word 
ddénc as referring to the splendour of these symbolical figures, which 
were covered with gold throughout, Exod. xxv. 18—20. J Kings vi. 28. 
Some understand ddéjc of the glory which was displayed under and 
around them; to which they suppose a reference to be made im Ps. 
Deeexe 1512. 

Karaoxiddgorra refers to the outstretched wings of the cherubim over 
the iAasripioy, as described in the passages above quoted. ‘INaarhpov 
here means, the lid or covering of the Kiwroe, which was pure gold, 
Exod. xxv. 17, 21. In Hebrew it is called )53, which the LXX. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 6, 7. 423 


have rendered itaorjpioy in Exod. xxv. 17, 21. As BD means, ta 
over sin, i. e. to make atonement for it, so np may very naturally 
be rendered tAaorfpeov, since it was by sprinkling blood upon this iAae- 
riaeov, by the high priest, that atonement was made, Lev. xvi. 14. 
‘IXaarijpwv, understood in reference to this, might be translated, the 
place or instrument of propitiation, or (with our English translators) 
mercy-seat. It was over this that the divine glory was seen, i.e. a 
supernatural, excessive brightness ; and hence God was supposed to be 
seated on it, as his throne, and from it to dispense his mercy, when 
atonement was made for the sins of the people, by sprinkling it with 
blood. Hence our appellation, mercy-seat. 

Tlepi Gy .... pépoc, respecting which things, it is not my present 
design to speak with particularity. ‘Qy here refers to the various 
articles of sacred furniture, which he had just been mentioning. He 
means to say, that a particular description of these, and of all the 
various utensils of the sanctuary, is not what he intends to give; i.e. 
he shall content himself with merely having suggested those which were 
already named. 

Ver. 6. Totrwy o€ otrw karackevacpévwy, now these things being thus 
prepared. Karackevagw is also, to build or construct. But in our 
phrase it means more. It designates not only the fabrication of the 
various utensils above named, but the adaptation of them to their respect- 
ive purposes, and the arrangement of them in the order which the rites 
of the sanctuary required. 

Eic pev tiv mpwrny . . . émeredovyrec, the priests, performing the 
services, entered continually into the outer tabernacle. Wpowrny, that 
which is first approached, i. e. outer, as in ver. 2 above. Aarpeiac, 
public religious services; see on ver. 1, above. Acaravroc, every 
day, without intermission, constantly and often. This the priest did, 
to make the morning and evening oblations and sacrifices; and also to 
present the private offerings of individuals. Mey is the usual sign of 
the protasis of a sentence here; to which ¢ée, in the apodosis, ver. 7, 
corresponds. Meéy, in such a case, is incapable of a translation that 
corresponds with its use in the original. It is easy to see, that there 
is not only a correspondence between the two parts of the sentence 
above mentioned, but also an antithesis between them. 

Ver. 7. Eic 0€ riv ceuvrépay .... 6 Up KXLEPEVC, but into the second [viz 
oxnvny, tabernacle, apartment,| the high priest only [entered,| once on 


a year; compare Lev. xvi. 2. Aevrépay implies oxy. “Arab means 


424 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. §. 


either simply once, as Gzak Kal dic, once and again; or it means orce 
only, once for all; which is the meaning of it here, and in several 
other passages of this epistle. Tod évcavrov is the genitive of time: 
the genitive being commonly used in order to designate the time when 
or how often. On the great day of atonement, it appears. that the 
high priest went thrice into the inner sanctuary, Lev. xvi. 12. 14, 15; 
to which may be added once more, in order to bring out the golden 
ecenser; which accords well with the Jewish tradition, viz. that the 
high priest entered the sanetuary four times, on the great day of 
explation. 

Ov xwole aiparoc, not without blood. See Lev. xvi. 14, 15, by which 
it appears, that the blood of a young bullock, Lev. xvi. 3, and of a 
goat, was brought into the most holy place, by the high priest, on the 
great day of atonement, and there sprinkled seven times upon the 
mercy-seat and before it. 

“O mpoopéper ..+. ayvonparwy, which he presented for his own sins, 
and for those of the people. See Lev. xvi. 6.11. 14—16. Tooagépes 
designates the act of presenting the blood before the Lord, as indi- 
eated in Lev. xvi. 14—I16. That the priest was to make atonement 
for himself, as well as for the pecple, is expressly declared in the verses 
above referred to. ’Ayvonparwy Wahl renders, sins of égnorance. But 
plainly it is not necessarily limited to this confined sense. It means, 
fault, error, sin, generally considered. So in Judith v. 20. Sirach 
xxii. 2; li. 19. Tobit iii. 3. 1 Macc. xiii. 39. The LXX. have some- 
times used it to express the Hebrew MAW, from mW, to err. In 
Lev: iv. 2. F3. 22. 27, sins mwa, through precipitancy, are men- 
tioned, and atonement is directed to be made for them, by sprinkling 
blood before the mercy-seat, Lev. iv. 6. 17. But this mode of making 
atonement, and this limitation of the kind of offences for which it was 
to be made in this peculiar way, seem to have been afterwards changed, 
and limited in a different way, on the occasion of the death of the 
sons of Aaron, Lev. x. 1, 2; xvi. 1, 2. It would seem, from Ley. iv., 
as if the sins 1}WA had a special atonement made for them, in the 
mner sanctuary, without limitation as to the number of times that the 
high priest might go there. But Lev. xvi. 2, restricted this custom; so 
that atonement for sin of any kind was made, before the mercy-seat, 
only once in a year, agreeably to Exod. xxx. 10. 

Ver. 8. Totro dndotvvrog . . . dd0v, the Holy Spirit signifying by 
this, that the way to the most holy place was not yet laid open. The 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. (xX. 9. 424 


Holy Spirit here mentioned, is that Spirit which guided the ancient 
prophets ; which taught Moses what arrangements to make for the 
service of God; and which signified, by these arrangements, what the 
apostle here affirms. Tovro I construe with ova understood, viz. by 
this ; so Ernesti and Dindorf, his rebus ; Storr, wodurch, whereby. 

Ty ray &yiwy dddv means, the way to the heavenly or upper sanctu 
ary. Through Jesus only, Jews and Gentiles have free access, at all 
times, to the mercy-seat of heaven: compare Eph, ii. 18. Heb. iv. 16 
This way was before obstructed by numerous ceremonial rites, and 
limited as to times and persons. Of necessity such was the case. 

"Erc tig mporng oKnrvijc Exovone ordow, while the first tabernacle had 
a standing; i. e. so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted. Mpwrnc¢ 
oxnvigc is here used, in the general or unlimited sense, for the tabernacle 
or temple, with its services. 

Ver. 9. “Hree rapaf3od}) 2... Tov éveotnxdra, which [has been] a 
type down to the present time. Wapafor} means, symbol, similitude, 
image, i. e. symbolical representation of any thing; which is also the 
meaning of rizoc. But in the English language, type is used not for 
similitude merely, but for something, under the ancient covenant, which 
was specially designed, on the part of God, to be a symbol of some 
person or event that was to exist or take place under the new one. 
Here, the preceding verse shows that the ancient tabernacle or temple 
was designed by the Holy Spirit to be a symbol, expressive of some 
important truths that had relation to the New Testament dispensation. 
Of course, the rendering of zapaj3od} by type, is appropriate to ex- 
press the idea intended to be conveyed by the writer. Eig rov éveatnxora 
* down to the present time; cic, ad, usque ad: see Wahl on ¢ie, 2. a. 

KaY ov dépa .... Aarpevovra, in which both oblations and sacri- 
fices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed for 
the worshipper, in respect to his conscience. Ka%’ dy, in which, during 
which, viz. time; see Wahl on cara, No. 2. Adpa re kai Svotac means, 
offerings of every kind, which were presented to God. For redewoat, 
see on reXeiwore, ch. vil. 11. The meaning is, ‘To render the mind of 
the worshipper secure of pardon for sin, and to produce that quiet 
which was connected with a well-grounded persuasion of this, and that 
moral purification which must accompany it.”” We have no one word 
to express all this in English. I have come as near to it as Iam able 
to do, in the version which I have given. 

The whole verse shows very plainly, that our epistle was written while 


oe 


426 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 10. 


the temple rites were still practised; consequently, before A. D. 70, 
But by the phrase, rév xapoy roy éveornxdra, the writer particularly 
alludes to the age then present, in which the new or Christian dispen- 
sation had begun. The whole sentence is as much as to say, ‘‘ The 
Jewish ritual, from the commencement of it down to the present 
moment, has never been, and still is not, any thing more than a type 
of the Christian dispensation, which has already commenced. All its 
oblations and sacrifices were ineffectual, as to removing the penalty due 
to sin in the sight of heaven, or procuring real peace of conscience. 

Ver. 10. Movoy éxt Bpwpace . . . éxtxeiveva, the ordinances of an 
external nature had respect only to meats, and drinks, and divers 
ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. A passage very 
difficult in respect to its grammatical construction. Many writers have 
referred ducauwpara to the dépa cat Svoiac, mentioned in the preceding 
verse; and then have found difficulty enough, (as well they might,) 
in accounting for it, how oblations and sacrifices could consist in meats, 
and drinks, and various ablutions. To me it seems quite evident, 
that ver. 10 is designed to signify something additional to that which 
is mentioned in ver. 9; although the construction is asyndic, i. e. Kat 
is omitted before povoy. "Ext Bpwpace.... Barriopoic, I understand 
as a Clause qualifying duampara, i. e, itstands in the place of an 
adjective designating wherein the duKcarpara consisted; while capxdc 
supplies the place of another adjective, denoting to what the duamwpara 
had relation, viz. to the flesh or external part of man. Meats and 
drinks have respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the 
Jewish dispensation ; and not (as some critics interpret the words) to 
the meats and drinks offered to the Lord. Most evidently, Barricpote 
refers to the ceremonial ablutions of the Jews, which had respect to 
external purification; and Spw@paci cat ropaoe seem plainly to respect 
the same kind of purity. Besides, all this agrees perfectly with the 
scope of the writer. He had denied that the penalty, due to sin in 
the sight of God, could be removed by any of the temple offerings, 
ver. 9; and in this verse he denies that the moral expiation required 
could be effected by any or all of the rites pertaining to external 
purification. Consequently, there was, according to him, nothing in 
the Jewish ritual, which could effect an atonement such as the sinner 
needed. 

Méype Kaipov diupSmoewe emuxetper'a, sc. joav. This clause, many 
interpreters have placed first in order in the verse, in the translations 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 10. 427 


which they have made; but this is unnecessary. It must be admitted, 
that the construction in this case is very difficult, and far from being 
clear. The intention of the writer seems to be the best guide; for, 
interpret as you please, the grammatical difficulties are about the same. 
I regard the whole in this simple light. Ver. 8 and 9 mention the 
tabernacle, (which of course includes the temple, for the latter was 
only a substitute of the former,) and declare that the same, with all its 
apparatus and rites connected with it, was only a rapafjody}, i. e. a 
symbol of something real and ultimate, under the new dispensation. 
Two particulars, or rather, two classes of things, belonging to the 
ancient ritual, now seem to strike the writer’s mind. First, the dopa 
kai Suoiae offered to God, ver. 9; and secondly, the various meats 
and drinks, distinguished into clean and unclean, to which men under 
the Levitical law must have respect, and the divers ablutions which they 
must practise. ‘¢The ordinances pertaining to the flesh,” says he, 
‘‘ which respect only meats and diinks, and divers ablutions, are im- 
posed until the time of reformation,” i. e. they are all of a temporary 
nature, and therefore are plainly to be abolished. I regard the last 
part of this affirmation, viz. that which asserts the temporary nature, 
(and therefore inadequate) nature of meats and drinks and ablutions, 
as corresponding with the pu) duvvdpevae cara ovveiOnow Tedew@oar TOY 
Aarpevovra of the ninth verse. Thus, both together declare the inade- 
quacy and temporary nature of the ancient ritual, and lead the mind of 
the reader to expect a new one; which the writer goes on immediately 
to propose, in ver. 11. 

Those who have referred Cucauopara exuxeipeva to Cwoa Kai Suoia, have 
been greatly perplexed in adjusting the reading of the word érecetyeva ; 
for in ver. 9, we have duydpevar (feminine) referring to Syvciac. They pro- 
pose that we should either read duvdpevar—érexeipevar, or else Curdpeva— 
emixeipeva, SO as to make them agree. But all this difficulty arises from 
connecting duampara with that to which it does not belong; as we 
have seen above. 

Most Codices and Versions read Cicampaor, instead of Ccampara ; 
but the latter is preferred by Knapp and others, and admitted to be of 
equal, or nearly equal, authority by Griesbach ; and it seems to me to 
make better sense, and to afford a more easy construction , than éuawpac., 

Karpov CuopSe@cewe plainly means, the time of the gospel dispensation, 
called yodvwy axoxardoracewc, in Acts iii. 21. Compare Mal. iti. 1; 
mina, Gs Asa, lxvi. 22°5 Ixviol?'s) The 16. 


428 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. Il. 


Thus much for the description of the earthly tabernacle and its sacred utensils, ioge- 
ther with an exhibition of the inefficacy of the whole in respect to meeting the wants of sin 
ners, and also an avowal of their temporary nature. They were intended only as the 
introduction to a new and better dispensation. Méy, in ver.11,is the sign of protasts, 
and is the correlate of dé in ver. 10, where the apodosis begins, All that follows ver. 1, 
ou to ver. 10, is only a particular description of what is mentioned in general terms 
in ver. 1, and is subjoined for the sake of illustration and impression. Ver. 10 is 
plainly the sequel to ver. 1, and nearly related to it. 

The writer now proceeds to shew, that the tabernacle in which Christ officiates, is 
0% yetporroinrog not Koopuxde, like that of the Jews. The antithesis between the old 
and new tabernacles, their services, and the respective efficacy of them, is carried on, 
by the apostle, through the remainder of chap. ix. and down to chap. x. 19. 


Ver. 11. Xprardc dé mapayevopevoe . . . ayadayv, but Christ being 
come, the high priest of future blessings. Xpiordg . . . mapayevopevog 
is nominative to the verb eionX Se in ver. 12. 

"Apytepeve THy perdddvrwy ayadéy, literally, a high priest of good 
things future, i. e. of future blessings. The meaning is, plainly, ‘‘ The 
high priest, who procures future blessings.’” The principle of interpre- 
tation is the same that is adopted in such phrases as the following: viz. 
the God of peace, 1. e. who procures or bestows peace; the God of con- 
solation, i. e. who bestows consolation; the God of grace, 1. e. who 
bestows grace ; dpro¢ rijc Cwije, i. q. proc rv Zunjy wove, &c. Christ is 
here called, the high priest who procures future blessings, by way of 
comparison with the Jewish high priest, who was pecirne (ch. viil. 6,) or 
Eyyvoe (ch. vii. 22,) between God and the people, and was the medium 
through which blessings were procured from God. 

Ava rije peiGovoc . . « Tij¢ Kricewc, through a greater and more perfect 
temple, not made with hands, that is, not of this [material] creation. 
Xknvy here, as in ver. 2, most probably means, the outer apartment or 
court only of the heavenly temple. So we must understand it, if we 
render da through, as the best commentators and lexicographers do, in 
this case. But to give it material form and shape, would be nothing 
less than to make it yeporotnroc; although the writer of our epistle 
expressly says, ‘ it is ov yetporoiyroc.” It is unnecessary, then, to 
inquire precisely what there is, in the heavenly world, which constituted, 
materialiter, this greater and more perfect outer sanctuary, through 
which Jesus passed, when eiop\Sev épamat cic ra fyi, ver. 12. The 
comparison is made with the high priest of the Jews, who passed through 
ihe outer sanctuary, when he entered into the inner one, upon the great 


COMMENTARY ON HEB xt. 11. 42) 


day of atonement. The probability is, that the writer compared, in his 
own mind, the veszble heavens, (through which Jesus passed in his ascen- 
sion on high, (ch. iv. 145 vi. 20; viii. 1, 2,) with the veil which sepa- 
rated the owfer sanctuary of the Jewish temple from the inner one; the 
clouds or sky, (which conceal the temple above from our view,) being 
resembled to the veil of the inner temple. Be this as it may, he expli- 
citly declares that he does not mean a material sanctuary, visible to the 
natural eye, and corresponding in this respect to that upon the earth ; 
for he says, it was ob xewporoinrog. And lest this should not be sufti- 
cient to prevent misapprehension, he adds, ov ravrne rife Kricewe, i. e. not 
of the visible material creation, or, not (like this creation) viszble aud 
material ; which is plainly implied by ratrne. 

The version of dua by Dr. Schulz, (vermége, by virtue of,) I am not 
able to comprehend. In what sense can it be said, that Christ, eam Sev 
eparaé cig Ta Ayia, aiwviay hiTpwow ebpdpevoc, BY VIRTUE OF a greater 
and more perfect tabernacle, that was not material? which is the same 
as to say, ‘‘ He entered into the adytum of the tabernacle above, by 
virtue of the same tabernacle.” Ido not aver that this has no mean- 
ing; but I readily confess my inability to discover what the meaning is. 
It would be well for Dr. Schulz, who has appended so many interroga- 
tion and exclamation points, to extracts made by him from Storr’s 
version of our epistle, and from his notes upon it, to defend, or at least 
explain, such a version as that which gives occasion to these remarks. 

There is, indeed, another construction of dua, in this case, which, if it 
might be applied, would give a meaning that is tolerable. Aca is often 
put before the genitive of a noun which indicates the manner, or the 
circumstances, in which any thing exists, or takes place, or is effected ; 
as all the lexicons will show. In 2 Cor. v. 10, the apostle says, ‘‘ We 
must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, in order that every 
one may receive, ra dua owparoc, [according to] the things done IN the 
body.” But, strictly considered, dua does not signify place here; for 
dua swparog Means, 7n a corporeal condition. Now, if we render the 
phrase in Heb. ix. 11, thus, in a greater and more perfect temple, we 
make é.a indicate the place where simply. To render it thus, I find no 
sufficient authority ; for dua is used only to denote the place through 
which, or by which one passes. See Wahl, da I.1.a. And besides, 
the circumstinces which attended Christ’s going into the most holy 
place, are noted in ver. 12; so that it is hardly to be expected that they 
are to be found here. There, cra is used in a way that is not at all 


430 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 12. 


uncommon; e. g. ‘‘ Christ entered the eternal sanctuary, ob ét aiparog 
Tpdywy Kat pdoxwy, but dra rov icéov atparoc.” 1 cannot see, therefore, 
how occ petZovoc Kal reXevorépae oxknrvijg can be construed in the way of 
indicating the circumstances in which, or the means by which, Christ 
entered the eternal sanctuary. Of course, cua, in the case under con- 
sideration, must, after all, be construed through ; and be understood as 
having reference to the passage through the zp@rn oxy}, in order to 
enter the devrépa oxny?. 

Ver. 12. Odds di aiparoc.... ra dyra, not with the blood of goats and 
of bullocks, but with his own blood, he entered once for all into the 
sanctuary. The Jewish high priest, on the great day of atonement, 
carried with him into the inner sanctuary, first, the blood of a bullock, 
and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, Lev. xvi. 14; then the blood of a 
goat, which he also sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, Lev. xvi. 15. Christ 
did not carry with him the blood of bullocks and goats, into the heavenly 
sanctuary, in order to make atonement; but he presented his own blooa 
there, in order to make expiation. But this is not to be understood 
literally; for as the sanctuary itself was ov ravrne rije Kricewe, OF ov 
xewporoinroc, so the Saviour’s blood, which was shed upon Calvary, was 
not literally taken and carried by him into the heavenly temple. All 
that is material, is only a figure or emblem of that which is spirdtual or 
heavenly. That dua before alparoe means with, cum, 2, is quite clear, 
from the nature of the case, and from comparison with Lev. xvi. 14, 15. 
2 Cor. ii. 4. Rom. ii. 27; xiv. 20; vill. 25. Heb. xii. 1, Aé is adversa- 
tive, but, when it follows a negative particle, as ovde is here. ’Egarak 
neans here, once for all, once only. 

Aiwviay NUrpwoty etpdpevoc, obtarning eternal redemption. Eipdpevoc 
is not an Attic form of the first aor. middle. It seems to be an 
Alexandrine form, made after the analogy of the 2 aor. evpa; see 
Winer’s Gram. § 9. d. Etpiocw often means, fo obtain or acquire any 
thing. Here, the act of entering the eternal sanctuary and presenting 
his own blood, is considered as the means by which the eternal redemp- 
tion of sinners is obtained or accomplished. Adrpwore, in the New 
Testament, means, liberation or redemption ; i.e. liberation from the 
penalty due to sin, or redemption from the bondage and penalty of 
sin. It is called aiwviay, because the redemption obtained is eternal 
in its consequences, or because it is liberation from a penalty which 
is eternal, and introduction to a state of endless happiness. The 
Abrawore effected by Christ, needs no repetition; when once made, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 13. 431 


the consequences are eternal ; as we may see in ch.ix 24—28; x. 1,? 
11—14. 

Ver. 13. Ei yap 70 aipa 2... Kexowwpévove, for if the blood of 
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. 
The blood of bulls and of goats, as employed for the purpose of puri- 
fication or expiation, is described in Lev. xvi. 14,15. It was also 
shed, on other occasions, as a sin-offering, Lev. i. 2—5. 10.11. Tatpwy 
in our verse, corresponds with pécywy in ver. 12. Both words mean 
a bullock, or a beeve: and the Septuagint employ both Greek words 
to translate the Hebrew iW and 9B. E. g. ratpoc for Ww in Gen. 
xlix. 6, and for IBD in Gen. xxxii. 16 [15]; pooyoc for WWW in Prov. 
xv. 17, and for 5 in Lev. iv. 3—5. 

Broddc dapddewe, k.7.A. See an account of the manner in which 
these ashes were prepared, in Numb. xix. 2—9. In the last verse, the 
ashes are directed to be kept for a water of uncleanness, WT); 1? 
i. e. to be mixed with water which was to be sprinkled on the unclean, 
that they might be purified. It is also called, in the same verse, Non, 
a sin offering, or (as our English version has it) a purification from sin, 
meaning a means of purification. So in Numb. xix. 13; 20, the per- 
son who had defiled himself, and neglected to have the iV "> sprinkled 
upon him, is pronounced unclean. Storr applies pavrigovoa to aipa, 
as well as to oroddc. But, setting aside the difficulty of the grammati- 
cal construction as to concord, it does not appear, that the sprinkling 
of blood upon the unclean was a usual part of the Levitical rites of 
purification. The blood was sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, and on 
the horns of the altar, and poured out before the altar. Nor is there 
any need of the construction which he adopts; for the sense is unem- 
barrassed, if we follow the usual grammatical construction. ‘PayriZovea 
is indeed feminine, and ozoddc¢ masculine. But such anomalies in 
concord are very common in Hebrew, see Gram. § 189, 5,7. Besides, 
as the latter noun here (dapéAewe) is feminine, it happens, as in some 
other cases of the like nature, that the grammatical concord, as to 
gender, is regulated by the latter of two nouns in regimen. 

‘AyuaZee eeseee KaSapérnra, sanctifies m respect to external purifi- 
cation. ‘AydéZer, used in respect to external rites, denoted that the 
person rendered ayraZdpevoc was clean or purified from all ritual un- 
cleanness, i. e. that he had performed all the necessary rites of external 
purification, so that he could draw near to God, as a worshipper, in a 
regular manner. Thus much, our author avers, was accomplished by 


432 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 14. 


the ceremonial rites of the law. If so, then greater efficacy is to be 
attributed to the sacrifice made by Christ, as he proceeds to declare. 

Ver. 14. Tdop padddov . . . Epywrv, how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who, in an eternal spiritual nature, offered himself without 
spot to God, purify our consciences from dead works. In ver. 11, 12. 
Christ is represented as entering the heavenly sanctuary, with his own 
blood, in order to expiate the sins of his people, or to procure Avzpwow 
for them, i. e. deliverance from the penalty of the Divine law. It is, 
then, in the heavenly world, in the tabernacle not made with hands, 
that the offering of our great High Priest is made. There he has pre- 
sented himself, in his heavenly or glorified state, in his eternal spiritual 
condition, or possessed of an eternal spiritual nature, as the victim that 
had been slain, ch. x. 1O—12; 1.3; vii. 27. Rev. v. 9. Eph. v. 2; 
and there his blood, that had been shed, is virtually offered to make 
atonement; not literally, but spiritually, i. e. in a manner congruous 
with the spiritual temple in which he ministers. 

Nearly to this purpose did Theophylact, long ago, explain this difficult 
passage. His words are, ‘‘ Ovk CipXLEPEVS TLC TPOCHvEyKE TOY xpLOTOY, 
GAN’ abrog Eavrov" Kat ov Sia Tupdc, WE ai Oapadere, GAA Ore TvEvpATOS 
aiwviov, Gore kai THY Xap Kal Ty arodiTpwow diawriew,” i. e. No 
high priest made an offering of Christ, but he of himself; and this, 
not by fire, as the heifers [were offered,] but by an eternal Spirit, so that 
he might render grace and redemption eternal. See Excursus XVIII. 

‘Eavroy rpoohveyxe. The apostle seems to use coma, Eavroy, and aipa, 
as equivalent in regard to the sacrifice which Christ offered ; see and 
compare Heb. i. 3; x.10; ix. 12.14; x.19; ix. 26. The reason 
of these different expressions may be found in the nature of the Jewish 
ritual. When the blood of an animal was presented before God, in 
order to make atonement, the body was also consumed by fire, so that 
the whole was offered in sacrifice. See Lev. iv. 6—12, 17—21. The 
use of either the three words copa, éavrov, aiua, as designating the 
sacrifice of Christ, implies all that would be designated by employing 
the whole of them; i. e. when his blood was shed, his body was slain, 
i. e. he himself was slain. 

"Apwpov, spotless, an evident allusion to the Jewish victims, which 
were required to be without spot or blemish. No other could be ac- 
cepted of God. So Christ, who was “ holy, harmless, undefiled, and 
separate from sinners, ch. vii. 26, was dywpor, i. e. a perfect victim, 2 
lawful or acceptable one 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 15. 433 


KaSapict rijy cuveidnow tpov ard vexpoy Epywy, shall purify our 
conscience from deadly works. KaSaptet is the Attic future for cata- 
pice. Xvveidnow Goes not mean simply the conscience as a faculéy 
of the soul, bnt the sind or conscious power of men, i. e. the internal 
or moral man. Nexpéy in such cases usually means deadly, i.e. having 
a deadly, destructive, condemning power. This may be the meaning 
here; and so it is more usually taken, and so | have translated it. 
But as in ver. 13, the writer has made mention of the ashes of a 
heifer, as one of the means of effecting external purification; and 
since, in Numb. xix. 11—19, these ashes are described as particularly 
intended to cleanse those who had been polluted by the touch of dead 
bodies ; may it not be supposed, that there is an allusion in the term 
vespov here to that fact? Dead works, in this sense, would be such 
as pollute the soul, as dead bodies did the persons of the Jews. Dead 
works, then, may mean sinful works; for it is from the pollution of 
sin that the blood of Jesus cleanses. 

Eic 16 Aarpetery Oe@ Cwvre, so that we may serve the living God; 
another allusion to the Jewish ritual. Before persons, under the 
ancient dispensation, could present themselves in the presence of the 
Lord acceptably, they must have been subjected to ceremonial purifi- 
cation. What this prefigured, the blood of Jesus effects. It takes 
away the sinner’s moral pollution, i. e. Christ removes the penalty to 
which he was obnoxious, and sanctifies, by the Spirit, the soul of the 
penitent sinner; and thus he may draw near to God, and offer him an 
acceptable service. He is clean, in a sense as much higher than the 
Israelite was who had purified himself only externally, as the efficacy 
of Jesus’ blood is greater than that of goats and bullocks. 

Ver. 15. Kai da rotro ccaShne Kauvijc.. «.KAnpovopuac, on this account 
also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that, his death 
having taken place for the sins [committed] under the former covenant, 
they who have been called might receive the promised blessing of the 
eternal inheritance. A passage about which much difficulty has arisen, 
and a variety of interpretations been proposed. Ava rovro, I understand 
as referring to the sentiment in ver. 14. The sentiment stands thus: 
“As Jewish sacrifices rendered the offerer externally clean; so the 
blood of Christ purifies the moral or internal man, and removes the con- 
sequences of sin. On this account, (61a rovro,) i.e. because the sacri- 
fice of Christ produces an effect such as the Jewish sacrifices did not, hs 

2F 


A34 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 15. 


may be justly called the mediator of a new covenant, differing greatly 
from the old.” Compare Heb. viii. 6—8. 13; vii. 15—19. 

AtaSixne Kawijc pecirne, means, the author of a new covenant, or the 
internuntius, IND, who (so to speak) negociated such a covenant 
between God and man. See Gal. iii. 19, where Moses is called the 
pecizne of the former covenant. 

“« But of what avail,” the Hebrews would very naturally inquire here, 
‘can this new covenant be, to all those who have lived in former ages, 
under the Mosaic dispensation? You affirm that the ritual of the 
Mosaic law had no power to remove the spiritual penalty of guilt; do, 
then, the patriarchs, and prophets, and just men of past ages, still lie 
under the imputation of the sins which they committed ?”” By no means, 
answers the apostle. A new and better covenant than the Mosaic 
one has been instituted, under which real spiritual pardon for 
offences is obtained, which avails to them as well as to us at the 
present time. 

"Orwe, k. tr. X. So that the death of Christ having taken place, for 
redemption from the punishment due to transgressions committed under 
the ancient covenant, those who have been called might be made par- 
takers of promised eternal blessings.* Oavarov means, the death of 
Christ. Tov rapaBacewr is governed in the genitive by the force of ao in 
composition with Avrpwow; and it means here, the effects of trans- 
gression, i.e. punishment, penalty; just as the Hebrew NNT and py 
mean, not only sin, but the penalty due to it. Oi xexdnpévor (like 
éxXexrol) means, those who are called, invited, viz. to an actual partici- 
pation of the heavenly inheritance. It is, of course, understood, that 
only those who are pious have such an inheritance promised to them. 
Compare kdijoewe éroupaviov péroxor, in Heb. iii. 1. Ot xexdnpévor here 
refers to just men, of the times which preceded the gospel dispensation, 
or new covenant; as the antecedent member of the verse clearly shows. 
Tijc aiwviov kAnpovoptiac, as a genitive, depends on érayyedéay, not on 
kexAnpévot, although such a separation is somewhat unusual; see on 
ver 16, Savarov....dvadepévov. *Erayyediay is best translated here, as 
in ch, vi. 12. 15. 17; ch. x. 36; ch. xi. 13, &c. promised blessings, or 
proffered good. The inheritance is called eternal, (aiwvtov,) because the 
blessings procured by a Saviour’s blood, for those who lived under 
the ancient dispensation, are of a spiritual eternal nature, see ver. 12. 
Such blessings could not be obtained by any of the rites of the old 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. I. 435 


covenant ; it is only by virtue of what is done under the new, by Jesus, 
that the ancient worthies came to the possession of them. 

The sentiment which this verse contains, respecting the efficacy of 
atoning blood in regard to the sins of preceding ages, has an exact 
parallel in Rom. iii. 25, where the blood of Christ is declared, by Paul, 
to have procured 7i)v wapeowy réy tpoyeyovorwy ayaprnuarwr, the remission 
of sins committed in preceding times; as is plain from the antithesis, 
rp viv karpp, in the following verse. Both passages compared, form a 
striking coincidence of a peculiar sentiment, which is no where else so 
clearly and directly asserted. 

Ver. 16. “Ozov yap diadixn.... dvaSepévov, for where there is a 
testament, (i. e. where a testament becomes fully so, ioxver, is veird,) 
the death of the testator must take place. The occasion of here intro- 
ducing dcaSijxn, in the new sense of testament, is stated in the summary 
prefixed to ch. iv. 14, and need not be again repeated. The whole com- 
parison of testaments (dcaSixav) among men, which confer a valid title 
to an inheritance, ver. 16, 17, most evidently springs from the mention 
of Christ’s death, in the preceding verse, and of the confirmation thereby 
of the believer’s title to a heavenly inheritance. It is as much as to 
say, ‘‘ Brethren, regard it not as strange, that the death of Christ should 
have given assurance of promised blessings to believers—should have 
ratified the new d:aSjxn, of which he is the author; other duaSicac are 
ratified by the death of their respective testators, and only in this way.” 
And then he goes on to show, that even the ancient covenant, though it 
could not be called a ceaSj«n in all respects, so well as the new one, 
still was ratified in a manner not unlike the new one, viz. by blood, the 
emblem of death, ver. 18—22. 

As the mode of illustration or comparison, in ver. 16, 17, depends 
entirely on the sense of the Greek word éiaSijxn, and is not at all sup- 
ported by any meaning of the Hebrew 3, it must be plain, that our 
epistle was originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, as some of 
the ancient, and a few of the modern, critics have supposed. 

@épecOa, in the sense of intervening, happening, takeng place, (which 
must necessarily be attached to it here,) has no exact parallel, that I can 
find, either in classic or sacred usage. It is, as to such a meaning, a 
true azaé Neyopevor. 

If the reader finds any difficulty in admitting, in ver. 15, the 
wide separation of érayyeMiay and xAnpovopuiac, he will now perceive 
a separation of the same nature, in respect to @dvarov and éraSepévov, 

2F2 


436 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 17, 18. 


about the relation of which no possible doubt can be rationally enter- 
tained. 

Ver. 17. AcaOhun yap éxt vexpoic BeBaia, for a testament is valid, in 
respect to those who are dead. ’Emi is not unfrequently employed to 
denote after, viz. in respect to time; e.g. Acts xi. 19, éri Xrepavy, 
after the time of Stephen, as Wahl renders it; and so Mark vi. 52, 
émt roic dprowc, after the loaves, i. e. the miraculous feeding of several 
thousands with them. So in Phil. iii. 12, éf’6, i. e. ex quo tempore, as 
Brettschneider renders it. But these cases are not altogether clear. In 
classic authors, however, éi rovroic, mneans, postea; SO Ext TugPr@ TO 
Aavodpuce, after Dandamis became blind, Lucian in Tox. See Vigerus, 
p- 620. Matthie, § 584. In accordance with this usage, many critics 
have translated the phrase under consideration thus: a testament is 
valid after men are dead, or, after death. This, no doubt, gives the 
general sentiment of the passage; but, after all, the explanation of 
éxt vexpotc in this way, is somewhat forced ; and I prefer that given in 
the translation, which conveys the same sense, and is not exposed to 
any doubts with regard to usage. 

"Emel duaSepevoc, since it is of no avail, while the testator ts living. 
Mirore is stronger than the simple negative m2); and one might well 
translate, since it ts of no avail at all. ’Ioyve, here first expressed, 
seems to be implied after deaSH«y, in ver. 16. 

The amount of the comparison in ver. 16, 17, is as before stated, that 
as dvaSfcac among men are ratified by death, so did the death of Christ, 
(which the writer had just mentioned, ver. 15,) ratify the new duabh«n 
which he had made, and gave a valid title to the heirs who were to 
receive the inheritance. 

Ver. 18. “Odev 000’ wees &ykexdetara, whence, neither the first 
[cvayxn] was ratified without blood. 

“Ober, whence, i. e. seeing that a dean must be ratified by the death 
of the testator, and that the new o:aOj«n has been ratified by the death 
of Christ, so as to make sure the inherttance to believers, verse 15; 
therefore 4 xpdérn, &c. The meaning is, that since the new testament 
(cat) ScaShxn) was, like other testaments, to be rendered valid by the 
death of the testator, therefore the radu eaOjkn, PUNT 73, which 
was the prototype and emblem of the new testament, was itself con- 
firmed, and all the apparatus attached to it consecrated, by blood, the 
emblem of death. The writer does not mean to say, that dca9j«n, in 
the sense of testament, can be appropriately used to designate the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 19. 437 


ancient covenant ; but he means to aver, that as the carv7) duabyKn could 
be appropriately enough called so, and as the death of Christ was to 
sanction it, therefore the ancient é.aOjxn prefigured this, by the use ot 
consecrating blood. In other words, as almost every thing attached to 
the radar dvahjcn was consecrated to God, and rendered acceptable to 
him by being sprinkled with blood, and the dvaOjxn itself was ratified in 
the same way; so under the caw) dcabjxn, the blood of Christ only 
consecrates all things and renders them acceptable to God, and his 
death has fully ratified the dua0j«n which he made. 

The resemblance between the ancient c:a@jxn and the new one, is 
plainly not entire. Moses, the pecirne of the ancient one, did not ratify 
it by his death; for his death is never represented by the Scriptures in 
such a light. “But as the new dva0ijxn was, in respect to the death of its 
peoirne, to differ from the old one; so, (our author means to say,) the 
old cva$j«n, which was in its nature typical or emblematical, did prefi- 
gure this very thing, by the use of blood ; i. e. the old covenant resem- 
bled the new testament, as much as the nature of the case permitted. 

IIpwrn agrees with draSijKn understood. ‘Eykexaiviorae, to initiate, 
to consecrate, to dedicate, i. e. by appropriate rites, to declare a thing 
which is already completed to be now ready for its uses, and to devote 
or dedicate it to those uses. The sprinkling of blood upon the book of 
the law, and upon the people, was the rite performed by Moses, when 
he consecrated the book of the law as their statute book, and them as 
publicly and solemnly bound to observe its precepts. 

Ver. 19. Aadndeione yap rdoneg «246+ TH ag, for when all the com- 
mandment, according to the law, had been recited by Moses to all the 
people. The raone évrodjijc, to which reference is here made, are the 
statutes contained in Exod. xx.—xxiii. These Moses first recited memo- 
riter to the people, after they had been communicated to him by the 
Lord at Sinai, Exod. xxiv. 3. He then wrote them down, Exod. xxiv. 4, 
and afterwards, on occasion of solemnly renewing the covenant on the 
part of the people to obedience, he again recited them from the book of 
the law, (AAT 75D,) Exod. xxiv. 7. Kara véuov most probably 
means here, accor ding to the written law, i. e. just as they were in the 
book of the law. But véyoy may refer to a command which Moses 
received to communicate to the people the laws given to him, although 
this command is only implied, but not expressed in the Scripture; in 
which case the meaning would be, that agreeably to the divine command, 
Moses read all the law to the assembled nation, 


438 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 19. 


AaBwy ro alwa . . . &ppdvrice, taking the blood of bullocks and of 
goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the 
book and all the people. This passage has occasioned no small per- 
plexity to commentators ; inasmuch as Moses, in his history of renew- 
ing the covenant of the people, in Exod. xxiy., has said nothing of 
the blood of goats; nothing of the water and scarlet wool and hyssop ; 
nothing of sprinkling the book of the law with blood. Whence then 
did the writer obtain these circumstances? That they were not mat- 
ters of new revelation to him, seems pretty evident; for he plainly 
makes an appeal to circumstances, which he takes for granted are 
well known to the Hebrews whom he addresses, and about which, 
if he were to commit an error of statement, be his readers would be 
revolted. 

1. The blood of goats. In Exod. xxiv. 5, it is said that Moses sent 
young men, who offered burnt offerings (,) and sacrificed sacri- 
Jices, peace offerings ( nw DVI) to Jehovah, even bullocks, (OB), 
Now, although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is quite probable 
that the ny on this occasion were goats; for nop is a holocaust, 
i.e. an offering entirely consumed by fire, while pinbw were mostly 
eaten by the offerers. That goats were used for all kinds of sacrifices, 
as well as bullocks, is quite evident from mere inspection of the Levi- 
tical law. E. g. goats are named as an my, Lev. i. 10; iv. 24. 28, et 
alibi. It is altogether probable, then, that the holocausts or ny men- 
tioned in Exod. xxiv. 5, as offered on the occasion of renewing the 
covenant, were goats; and were of course understood by a Jewish 
reader to be such, inasmuch as the Dy22u only are affirmed to have 
been bullocks. 

2. The water, scarlet wool, and hyssop. That water was used as 
well as blood, in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly implied in 
Lev. xiv. 4—7, compared with Ley. xiv. 49—52. Numb. xix. 18. 
Ps. li. 7. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. The scarlet wool, (Mydin %W scarlet,) 
was connected with a branch of hyssop [TiN,) in order to make a 
convenient instrument for receiving and sprinkling the blood and water. 
It is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in Exod. xxiy.; but it is doubt- 
less implied; for this was ghe common instrument by which the rite 
of sprinkling was performed. So in Exod. xii. 7, direction is simply 
given to sprinkle the door-posts of the Israelites with blood; and 
afterwards, in ver. 22, it is mentioned, that this was to be done with a 
bunch of hyssop. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 19, 449 


So in Lev. xiv. 4—7, the nydin WwW, i. €. Eptoy Koxkivoy, and the 
hyssop, are mentioned as employed in ‘the office of sprinkling; and 
again, in Lev. xiv. 49-52. The hyssop is also mentioned in Numb. 
_ xix. 18. Ps. li. 7. It may well be presumed, that the reason why 
the writer of our epistle, and the Hebrews of his time, supposed that 
Moses made use of the water and hyssop and scarlet wool, in the 
lustration of the people, when the covenant was renewed, was because 
these were employed in the Justrations where sprinkling was performed, 
on other occasions. The convenience of the instrument in question, 
and the nature of the case, would very naturally lead to such an 
opinion ; and who can doubt that it is well grounded ? 

3. The book of the law. Because nothing is said, in Exod. xxiv. 
3—8, respecting the sprinkling of the book, many commentators, e. g. 
Grotius, Bengel, Kopp, Storr, and others, construe aid ré 7d uf3diov 
with AaPwy 7d aipa, i.e. taking the blood .... and also the book of 
the law. So far as such a construction of the particle ré itself is con- 
cerned, this might perhaps be allowed; for re is sometimes employed, 
when it is not preceded by «ai or dé, in the clause immediately ante- 
cedent; as in Acts ii. 33. To justify the method of interpretation 
now in question, Storr appeals to Heb. ix. 1, and xii. 2. But in the 
former case, 7é is preceeded by kat; and the latter is a case where two 
verbs are connected. But in our verse xat follows B.fdioy, and seems 
necessarily to connect it with wavyra roy Nady. But to say of Moses, 
AaBwy .... wavra roy Nady, will not be contended for. Michaélis, 
Heinrichs, Dindorf,, Ernesti, and others, agree with the interpretation 
which I have given. Indeed, cat and ré seem to be as necessarily related 
here as e¢ and que are in Latin; and, in fact, they commonly sustain 
the same relation to each other. As to manuscripts, only one omits 
kal after (x3éov ; and we are obliged, therefore, by the laws of criticism, 
to retain it, whatever difficulties it may occasion to the interpreter. 

In regard to the fact itself, viz. that Moses did sprinkle the book 
with blood, no intimation of it is given in Exod. xxiv. 3—8. Yet 
nothing can be more probable, than that such was the fact. Aaron, 
and his sons, and their garments, were sprinkled with blood, when 
consecrated to the priest’s office, Exod. xxix. 19—21. The blood of 
sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar, Exod. xxix. 16. Lev. i. 5. 11: 
ill. 2. 13; also before the veil of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6. 17; com- 
pare, Lev. vi. 2h: vie 4s oyun. 15: 19.24.30; ix. 12, 18. et -alibi: 
Philo, (de Vita Mosis B. p. 675,) has a passage which speaks of all 


440 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 19. 


the various apparatus of the tabernacle being anointed with holy oil, 
and the vestments of the priests being sprinkled with blood. So Jose- 
phus, also, speaks of sprinkling the garments of Aaron and his sons 
with aiparoc ray reSupevwy, the blood of the slain beasts, and with 
spring water, and holy chrism. Lib. V. 6. 6. p. 334. edit. Havercamp. 
All this serves to show how common this rite of sprinkling with blood 
was in the Jewish ritual; so common, that the writer of our epistle 
seems, with those whom he addressed, to have considered it a matter 
of course, that when the people were sprinkled with blood, at the time 
of renewing their covenant to keep the precepts contained in the book 
of the law, Exod. xxiv. 8, the book itself, like all the sacred apparatus 
of the temple, was also sprinkled in like manner. Nothing could be 
more natural. The people were consecrated to observe the statutes 
of the book; and the book was consecrated, as containing that sacred 
code of laws which they were bound to obey. 

If, however, after all, one is not satisfied that Paul drew his con- 
clusions from the analogies and probabilities just stated, he may easily 
suppose that tradition among the Jews had preserved the remem- 
brance of the particulars described in our verse, on account of the 
very solemn and important nature of the transaction with which they 
are connected. It would be easy to suppose, with some commentators, 
that these particulars were suggested in a miraculous way, by the 
Holy Spirit, to the mind of the writer. But this solution of the diffi- 
eulty is not a probable one; because the writer evidently touches upon 
circumstances here, which he takes it for granted his readers will at 
once recognize and admit. If so, then these things must have already 
been matters of common opinion among the Hebrews; and conse- 
quently were not now first suggested to the writer of our epistle in a 
miraculous way. At all events, there can be no serious difficulty in 
the case. The fact that Exod. xxiv. 3—8 does not mention the par- 
ticulars in question, can be no more proof that they did not take 
place, than the fact that the evangelists have not recorded the words 
of Christ, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive,” would prove 
that he did not utter them. Whether Paul and the Hebrews knew 
these things by tradition, or believed from analogical reasoning, cannot 
be important. Enough that they were facts, and were appealed to as 
such by the .writer, with full confidence that they would be recognized 
by his readers. 

To illustrate the principle, de minimis non curat lex, it may be 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 20." 44, 


remarked, that Paul says simply, A\aBwy ro atya; Moses, that ‘“ he took 
half of the blood,” Exod. xxiv.6. But, surely, if he did the latter, he 
did the former. Such expressions, no where either in sacred or profane 
writers, are to be tortured, in order to extract from them a metaphysical 
exactness : verba—une resecanda ad vivum. 
In the like manner, I interpret ravra tov Nady. How, it has been 
asked, could he sprinkle three millions of people, with the blood of a 
few goats and bullocks? In such a way, I would answer, as “‘ all Judea 
and Jerusalem went out to John, to be baptized of him in the river 
Jordan, confessing their sins,” Matt. iil. 5, seq. Must we now under- 
stand by this, that all the infants, the non compotes mentis, mutes, the 
sick, infirm, the aged, all females, or literally ald males, repaired to 
John, to be baptized, and did ail (infants and mutes with the rest) 
confess their sins to him? If not, then there is no difficulty in con- 
struing wayra tov adv, in the case now under consideration. Moses 
sprinkled blood on the multitude of the people, I take to be the simple 
meaning of the writer; not that all and every individual was actually 
and personally sprinkled. Some were actually sprinkled; and these, 
being of the multitude, were representatives of the whole. Nothing is 
more common than to attribute to a body of men collectively, what 
belongs, strictly considered, only to certain individuals of that body. 
Thus, what the government of this country do, the Americans are 
said to do. 

Ver. 20. Aéywy* rovro 16 aipa .... 6 Osdc, saying, This is the 
blood of the covenant, which God has enjoined upon you. Another 
instance, in which the letter of the Old Testament is forsaken, 
and the sense merely retained. The original in Exodus xxiv. 8, is, 
DIY MT NID WN NIT OT 7M, behold, the blood of the cove- 
nant which God has made with you. But (aT means, see here, or see 
this, and is equivalent to rodro used as a demonstrative. The verb ND 
is rendered by the LXX. éé0ev0; by our author, évereiAdro. The TeaSon 
of this probably is, that M3, in Exod. xxiv. 8, means statutes, laws, 
as it evidently refers to the preceding statutes, in Exod. xx.—xxiii. 
God commanded that the people should observe these; and with refer- 
ence to this injunction, our author says, évereiAaro. 

To aipa rijc OcaShene means the blood by which the covenant, or, assent 
on the part of the people to the laws proposed, or rather, their promise to 
observe them, Exod. xxiv. 7, was ratified. So common was it, among 
the Hebrews, to ratify engagements by the blood of animals slain, that 


442 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 21. 


the usual idiom of the language is, JIA M73, to cut a covenant, i.e. to 
sanction one by cutting an animal into two pieces, and passing between 
them. See Gen. xv. 10; xxxi. 54. Jer. xxiv. 18. Ephrem Syrus testi- 
fies, that the Chaldeans had the same usage, Opp. I. p. 161; as also 
Hacourt does, in respect to the Arabians, Histoire de Madagascar, 
p. 98. 360. The meaning.of such a transaction seems evidently to be, 
that the persons who make the engagements, by passing between the 
dissevered parts of the slain animal, virtually say, ‘“‘ If we preserve not 
our engagement faithfully, and without violation, then let us be cut in 
pieces, like the animal between whose dissevered parts we now pass.” 
' The sprinkling of blood on the people, Exod. xxiv. 8, was a solemnity 
of a similar nature. By it they were also ceremonially purified, and 
consecrated to God. 

Ver. 21. Kal rijy oxy .... éppavrice, the tabernacle, also, and 
all the vessels for service, he sprinkled in like manner with blood. 
Kai, although a kind of copulative here, still indicates another transaction 
different from that related in ver. 19; for when the people were sprinkled 
with blood, the tabernacle was not built, neither were the oxetn Necroupylac 
yet made. The setting up and consecration of the tabernacle, with its 
vessels, is related in Exod. xl. ; yet nothing is there related of sprinkling 
them with blood, but only of anointing them with holy oil, Exod. xl. 
9—11. In the like manner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons 
is there spoken of as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of 
their office in the tabernacle, Exod. xl. 12—15; while nothing is said 
at all of their beg sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Exod. 
xxix. 20, 21, and Lev. viii. 24. 30, we shall see that it is certain that 
Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, as well as anointed with 
oil. In like manner, it is probable, that the tabernacle and its furniture 
were sprinkled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in 
Exod. ch. xl. Josephus says, ‘‘ Both the tabernacle and the vessels 
pertaining to it, [Moses sprinkled and purified] with oil, prepared as 
I have described, and with the blood of bulls and rams that were slain, 
one of each kind alternately, every day,” Antiq. III. 8. §6. This seems 
to indicate, that Josephus had the same view as Paul, in regard to 
purifying the tabernacle. The verbs in brackets, in the above trans- 
lation, are drawn from the preceding clause, where we find ¢ppauer 
apayvioac, purifying he sprinkled. They belong to the sentence here 
translated, by tmplication. 

In regard to the fact itself, we may observe, that it is rendered quite 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 22. 443 


probable from analogy. Then, as to a knowledge of it by our author, 
nothing more is necessary, than the supposition that tradition had con- 
veyed the knowledge of this, as well as of many other facts, down to the 
time of Paul. The writer evidently appeals to facts, which were 
believed by the Hebrews in general whom he was addressing; and facts 
which, although not stated in the Old Testament, are by no means 
improbable, and which no one surely has it in his power to contradict. 

Ver. 22. Kal oyeddv év aipare . . . vdpov, indeed, every thing is, 
according to the law, purified by blood. Kat, imo, vero, yea, indeed. 
Syeddy wévra, and not rdyra absolutely and simply; for some things 
were purified by water, Ley. xvi. 26. 28. Numb. xxxi. 24, some by fire 
and water, Numb. xxxi. 22,23. But the exceptions were few, in which 
shedding of blood, or sprinkling of blood, was not required, in order to 
effect ceremonial purity. See on ver. 19. 

Kat ywpic aiparexyvoiac ov yiverar ddeotc, and without shedding of 
blood there is no remission [of sins.] See Lev. iv. 2—6. 13—17. 
22—25. 27—30, and 31. 35. Under the Mosaic law, not every trans- 
gression could be atoned for; consequently, remission of the penalty 
which the law inflicted could not, in some cases, be obtained. See 
Numb. xv. 30, 31. It was only he that sinned through a degree of 
ignorance or inadvertency, who could bring his sin and trespass offering, 
Numb. xv. 27. 29; for cases of a different nature, compare Lev. iv. 2. 
13. 22.27. The NNW and DWN stn and érespass, were atoned for, in 
a civil and ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices, which 
bore the like names. But in this case, the remission was only from a 
temporal penalty or calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices 
could atone for sin, as viewed by the righteous Governor of the world. 
Such the nature of the case seems plainly to be; and so the writer of our 
epistle has expressly declared, inch. x. 4. God, as the king and head of 
the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty which the Jewish 
law inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect 
merely to the present world, and not to the accountability of trans- 
gressors, before the tribunal of the universe, in the world above. Even 
temporal forgiveness, however, could not be obtained ywole aiparexyvoiac. 
It was thus, that these irodeiypara shadowed forth, to the ancient church, 
the necessity of atoning blood, which possessed a higher virtue than that 
of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened 
in respect to a future world. So the writer proceeds to tell us in the 
next verse, 


444 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 23. 


Ver. 23. "Avaykn odv , . . rabrac, since, then, the images of heavenly 
things must needs be purified by such [rites,] the heavenly things them- 
selves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. Méy is here 
the mere sign of protasis. ‘Yrodelypara, copies, effigies, images, resem- 
lances, likenesses ; meanimg the tabernacle and temple, with all their 
sacred utensils, &c. See on ch. vill. 5. Tév év roic obpavoic means, 
the spiritual objects of the heavenly world, of which the tabernacle, with 
all its apparatus and services, was only a symbol. See on ch. viii. 5. 
Tovrote designates such things, i. e. such rites and means of purification, 
as had been described in the preceding context. KatapiZeoSar refers to 
the ceremonial purification of the temple and its sacred utensils; e. g. 
of the most holy place, Lev. xvi. 15, 16. of the altar, Lev. xvi. 18. 
Exod. xxix. 36, 37; of the tabernacle, Lev. xvi. 20. 33. This was to 
be done, because the Israelites, sinful and impure, profaned these sacred 
things by their approach, Lev. xvi. 19; xv. 31. Numb. xix. 19, 20. 
And this being done, God vouchsafed his presence in the tabernacle, and 
promised to dwell among the Israelites, Exod. xxix. 43—46. All this 
was symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary and sacrifice. God permits 
sinners to hope for pardon and approach to him, only when they are 
sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus; and what was done on earth 
as a symbol, has been done in the heavenly world in realty, i. e. so as 
actually to procure spiritual pardon, and restoration to the Divine favour, 

Aira O€ ru érovpdvia .... tatrac. Ae is the sign of apodosis merely. 
It may be translated, therefore, then ; but there is no need of rendering 
it, as our language does not demand like signs of protasis and apodosis 
with the Greek. ’Ezoupdyia means the oxnyi adnSivn, fv Exner 6 Kiproc, 
ch. vill, 2, i. q. 4 oxnvi ob xetporotnroc, ch. ix. 11. But how could the 
heavenly tabernaéle, catapiJecSa, be purified? The grammatical con- 
struction of ver. 23, certainly requires us to supply this verb in the latter 
clause, since it is expressed in the former. But the word, of course, can 
be here used only in a figurative manner; for the éxovpavia are not 
impure. But as God was accessible to offenders, in his sanctuary on 
earth, only when atoning blood had been offered; so God, in his hea- 
yenly sanctuary, is accessible to sinners, only through the blood of Jesus 
there offered, and there consecrating a new and living way of access to 
the throne-of mercy. It is in this sense, that the writer means to apply 
kaSapiZeaSar, viz. that of rendering the sanctuary approachable by 
offenders, and affording assurance of liberty to draw near to God (ch. 
iv. 16,) rather than that of direct purification from uncleanness ; which 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix, 24. 445 


could not be predicated of the heavenly sanctuary. It is the effect of 
the purifying blood of Jesus, in regard to giving access to the heavenly 
sanctuary, which the writer means to compare with the purification of the 
tabernacle and its utensils; for the most holy place of the earthly taber- 
nacle could be properly approached by offenders, only when atonement 
was made. 

Ver. 24. That better sacrifices than those offered on earth by the 
Jewish priests, were required under the priesthood of Christ, necessarily 
results from the nature of the sanctuary in which Christ ministers. Ov 
yap eic xeporoinra ayia ..+. dvpavoy; for Christ entered not into a sanc- 
tuary made by hands, which is only a copy of the true one, but into hea- 
ven itself. It is the entrance of Christ, as a priest, into the heavenly 
sanctuary, of which the writer is here speaking. That Christ performs 
the office of priest in the heavenly sanctuary, the writer has already 
intimated several times; see ch. ix. 9. 11; vill. 1—4. ’Avrirura copy, 
image, effigy, form or likeness, corresponding to the original rizoc, shewn 
to Moses in the mount, ch. vill. 5. *AAnSwoeyv means, that which is real ; 
i. e. the original or heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly one is a 
mere copy. In other words, they stand related as substance and shadow, 
or image. The realzty is in heaven; the emblem or mere similztude of it, 
on earth. 

Noy éugavicSiva . . . iydy, thenceforth to appear before God in 
our behalf. Niyv means, from the point of time when he entered hea- 
ven as our high priest, onward indefinitely; and it implies, that his 
office was continued while the writer was then addressing his readers. 
’"EugarioSjvac means, among other things, to present one’s self before 
a tribunal, for the sake of accusing or defending. In the former case, 
it is followed by xara, e. g. Acts xxiv. 1; xxv. 2. 16: in the latter, it 
takes izép after it, as in our text. The usual and full grammatical con- 
struction would be dare éugarioSijvar. I have been able to find no 
similar usage of gugavifw, among the Greeks. 

TO mpocwry rov Oeov, the same as the Hebrew ovriby 1955 , being 
altogether Hebraistic. The whole comparison is taken from the custom 
of the Jewish high priest, who, when he entered the most holy place, 
was said to appear before God, or to draw near to God, because 
the presence of God was manifested over the mercy seat, in the holy 
of holies, and God was represented, and was conceived of by the 
Jews, as sitting enthroned upon the mercy-seat. Now, as the high 
priest appeared before God, in the Jewish temple, and offered the blood 


446 COMMENTARY ON HEB. FX, 25,.26. 


of beasts for expiation, on the great day of atonement, in behalf of 
the Jewish nation; so Christ, in the heavenly temple, enters the most 
holy place with his own blood (ver. 12,) to procure pardon (aiwvrfay 
Aurpwowv) for us. This is what the writer means, by éu¢anoSiva ro 
mpoowrw Tov Ocov brép par. 

Ver. 25. But although there is a similitude between the atoning 
office of Christ and that of the Jewish high priest, yet there is a 
great difference, in some respects, between his manner of offering 
expiatory sacrifice, and that of the Levitical priesthood. Ovd tva 
modAakig « « « GAorpiv, yet not that he may frequently repeat the 
offering of himself, like the high priest, who, every year, enters into 
the sanctuary with blood not his own. This refers to the entrance 
of the high priest into the sanctuary, on the great day of atonement. 
*Ev aipart @\dorpiv, with the blood of others, i. e. with blood not his 
own; in distinction from the manner in which Christ entered the 
heavenly sanctuary, which was with his own blood, ver. 12. Two points 
of difference, then, are here suggested, between the Jewish offerings 
and that of Christ; the one, that they were often repeated, his was 
made but once; the other, that the high priest presented the blood of 
goats and bullocks, but Jesus, his own blood. 

Ver. 26. ’Exel dee . . . Kdopov, for then he must needs have often 
suffered since the world began. That is, since the blood of Christ is 
necessary to make atonement for sin, and to procure pardon for it 
from the righteous and spiritual Judge of men; and since the bless- 
ings procured by the death of Jesus must avail, as well to the benefit 
of the ages which preceded his coming,-as to those which follow it, (see 
ver. 15, and Rom. iii. 25, 26;) it follows, that if his sacrifice had not 
been of a different nature and value from that of the Jewish priests, it 
must have been continually repeated, from the very beginning of the 
world, down to the time in which the writer was addressing his readers. 
We may of course add, that it must have continued to be repeated 
down to the end of the world, for the same reason. This passage 
serves then to show, that when Heb. ix. 15, and Rom. iii. 25, 26, are 
construed as having relation to the retrospective influence of the 
death of Christ, no doctrine foreign to the conceptions of our author is 
introduced ; for the verse under consideration is plainly built upon the 
ground of such a retrospective influence. 

Nov ce Grak . . . wepavépwra, but now, at the close of the [Jewish] 
dispensation, he has, once for all, made his appearance, in order to 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 27. 4.47 


remove the punishment due to sin by the sacrifice of himself. Niv 
does not relate particularly to time here, but is a particle of opposition, 
in contradistinction to éwel. Luv7edeig tov aiwrywy, the close of the 
Mosaic economy or period. Aid#y singular, and aidvec plural, appear 
to be sometimes used in the same sense, in the New Testament; like 
ovpavoc and odpavol, caBParov and o4fGara, and some other nouns. For 
the meaning given to aiwy, see Wahl’s Lexicon on the word. 

’AS€Ernore signifies putting away, removal, abrogation, annulling, &c. 
‘Apapria I understand here, as meaning the penalty due to sin; just as 
the Hebrew MN means sen, and the punishment, consequences, of 
sin; and }iP means, iniquity, and the punishment, i. e. consequences, 
of iniquity. It is true, indeed, that Christ came to save men from the 
power, as well as the penalty, of sin; but most evidently his death is 
here considered, by our author, as an expiatory sacrifice, by virtue of 
which the consequences of sin, i. e. the punishment due to it, are 
removed, and the sinner treated as though he were innocent. 

Ata rij¢ Svciac atrov: compare ch. i. 3; il. 14; vii. 27; ix. 12. 14, 
15; x. 5—10. 

The whole comparison stands thus: “ As the expiatory sacrifices under 
the law, which were annually offered, and therefore often repeated, pro- 
cured remission of the temporal punishment due to offences under the 
Mosaic dispensation ; so the sacrifice of Christ, and the blood which he 
presents, once for all, in the eternal or heavenly sanctuary, is effectual 
to procure spiritual pardon for all times and ages, past and to come.” 
Nothing could exhibit the great superiority of Christ’s priesthood over 
that of the Jewish, in a more striking point of light than this. The 
latter, by its offerings angl atonements, procured only a remission of 
temporal punishment in the present world ; the former, a remission aiw- 
viov Kokdoewc, (Matt. xxv. 46,) in the world to come. 

Ver. 27. Kat ka doov oes.++ plore, for since it is appointed unto 
men to die once only, and after this [cometh] the judgment. Ka dcov 
is sometimes equivalent to caSwec, sénce, as, in this epistle; e. g. ch. 
vil. 20, compare ver. 22 ; and here it is plainly the same as we or caSwe. 
"Ardxerrar, repositum est, it is laid up for, i. e. by Divine appointment, 
zé is reserved for, or it awaits men once to die. The translation gives 
the meaning, but not with literal exactness. "Amat is here, once for 
all, only once ; for the object of this comparison is to show that as men 
die but once, so Christ, who had a nature truly human, and was in all 


448 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Ix. 28. 


things made like unto his brethren, (ch. ii. 17,) could die but once, (and 
not oftentimes,) in order to atone for sin. 

Mera 6€ rovro xptowc, i. e. men, having once died, go after that to a 
state of reward or punishment, to a final state, in which no more such 
changes as death makes can be suffered. The clause in question is added 
to the former part of the verse, in order to show that dying more than 
once is impossible, inasmuch as judgment immediately follows, with 
which is connected the immutable state of men. The implication con- 
tained in this verse, viz. that a state of trial in a future world, like to 
that which is allowed to men in the present world, is not to be expected, 
seems to be plain. 

Ver. 28. Otrw cai 6 Xpiordc «222+ cpapriac, so Christ, also, after 
having once for all offered up himself, in order to bear the sins of 
many. The writer had been labouring, in the preceding context, to show 
that the offering of Christ needed not, like that of the high priest, to be 
often repeated. Ver. 27 and 28, are designed to show that a repetition 
of the death of Jesus (who suffered in our nature) would have been 
inconsistent with the nature which he sustained, and contrary to all 
analogy. So the author; ‘‘ Since men die but once, so Christ died or 
was offered up, zpocevexSele, but once. 

IIpocevexOeic (from mpoopépw) is a participle of the first aor. passive, 
and may be rendered offered up himself, or, made an offering of him- 
self, inasmuch as the first aor. passive, frequently has a middle or 
reflexive sense, particularly when any verb lacks the first aor. of the 
middle voice, Buttmann Gram. § 123. TTIpocgépw is a very general word 
in respect to offerings, and designates the action of the person who 
brings the sacrifice, or of the priest who presents it. As the sacrifice 
offered to God was first slain, and then presented; so the idea of an 
offermg here necessarily involves the idea of the death of the victim 
offered. It is this implied idea of the death of the victim, that stands 
in comparison with the drat aroOaveiv of all men; i.e. as they die but 
once, so Christ died but once. 

TloAd@y, many, i. e. all nations without distinction, J ews and Gentiles, 
for ages past, and ages to come, ver. 15. 26. and Rom. iii. 25, 26. 
See the like representation, respecting the universality of the benefits 
offered through the death of Christ, in Matt. xx. 28; ch. xxvi. 28. 
Rom. v. 15. 19, compare ch. v. 18. John vi. 51; ch. iii. 16. 1 John 
u. 2, &e. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 28. 449 


’"Aveveyxely apapriac, to bear the sins, means, to bear the punishment, 
i. e. to suffer the penalty, due to sin. See Excursus XIX. 

"Ex deurépov.. . . el¢ awrypiay, shall make his appearance, a second 
time, without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who wait for him. 
"Ex devrépov has reference to &wag in the preceding clause. Christ 
appeared, and died once for sin; but when he appears again, éx Cevrépov, 
it will not be to repeat his sufferings, 1. e. to make again an expiatory 
sacrifice, but for the purposes of bestowing rewards on those who trust 
in him, and wait for his coming: 

Xupile duapriac has been variously explained. But it is evident, that 
the expression has a direct reference to the preceding clause, i. e. either 
to rpocevexOeic, or to dveveyxeiy dapriac. In the former case, duapriac, 
in our clause, would mean sin-offering, like MNT, DWN, because 
mpocevexOetc means, he made himself an offering. The meaning would 
then be, “‘ but when Christ again appears, he will not make himself a 
sin-offering,” i. e. his appearance will be ywpic auapriac. So I under- 
stand the phrase. But if we construe ywpic dpuapriac, as referring to 
dveveykety Gpapriac, then the supplement to the phrase will be xwpic 
[rov dveveyxeiy] Gpapriac. The meaning of this is, ‘‘ Without again 
suffering the penalty due to sin.” In either way, the sense amounts to 
about the same; for either method of interpretation makes the writer 
say, that Christ would no more suffer on account of the sins of men, but 
that, by dying once, he has perfectly accomplished the redemption of 
those who trust in him. 

Tote abrov amexcexopévore Means, those who, renouncing the world, 
and resisting all the motives to swerve from Christian hope and faith, 
which the times presented, patiently wait for the rewards which the 
Saviour will finally bestow upon his followers. There is a tacit admo- 
nition to the Hebrews in this; for it is as much as to say, “ Those only 
who do thus persevere, will be rewarded.” Eic owrnpiay has reference 
to the future salvation or blessedness, which Christ will bestow upon his 
followers at his second coming. 


The insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices to procure spiritual pardon for sin, 
and the sufficiency of the sacrifice which Christ had offered, was one of the most 
important and interesting of all the points which the writer of our epistle had to 
discuss, The Hebrews in general placed full confidence in the efficacy of the Levi- 
tical sacrifices to purify them from sin—at least, to remove the penalty of it. Every 

2G 


450 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. I. 


person, who is conscious of sin, and knows that it subjects him to the penalty of the 
Divine law, must naturally feel a deeper interest in the question, Whether, and how, 
sin can be pardoned? than in any other. It was very natural for Jews who had 
been educated in the full belief of the efficacy of the sacrifices instituted by Moses, 
to cling to them as the foundation of their dearest and highest hopes, viz. the 
means of pardon, and restoration to Divine favour. It was an attachment to the 
Jewish ritual, built upon hopes of such a nature, which rendered the Mosaic religion 
so attractive to the Hebrews, and endangered their adherence to a Christian pro- 
fession. There was much, too, in the pomp and solemnity of their rites, which 
served to interest the feelings, and delight the fancy, of the worshippers. It is on 
account of the strong attachment which they cherished for their system of sacrifices 
and purifications, that our author is so urgent in showing that real pardon with 
God could not be procured by any or all of these means. The blood of Christ only 
cleanses from sin, and procures acceptance for sinners with God, as their spiritual 
judge. : 

Accordingly, in ch. ix. he declares that the tabernacle, with all its sacred utensils 
and services, was only an image or symbol (zapafsodx)) of what is real and spiritual 
in the heavenly world, a copy merely of the cxn1) od yerporroinroc, ch. ix. 9—11, 
ora mere v7ddeypa TH év odpavoic, ch. ix. 23. The Jewish sacrifices availed for 
nothing more than external purification, ch. x. 10.13; while the blood of Christ 
purified the soul or mind (ovveidnoww) from the uncleanness of sin, and rendered it 
capable of offering acceptable service to the living God, ch. ix. 14. After adducing 
various considerations, to show how extensively the rites of the law, which required 
the exhibition and application of blood, prefigured that atoning blood which Jesus 
offered, to make expiation for sin, and that his death, once for all, was sufficient for 
this purpose, he proceeds, in ch. x. more deeply to impress the great subject of 
atoning sacrifice by Christ upon the minds of his readers, knowing that very much 
depended on the conviction which might be attained in respect to this point. Could 
they be persuaded, that Jesus had himself offered the only sacrifice which made real 
expiation for sin; and that this, once offered, was an all-sufficient sacrifice ; then there 
could be no rational inducement for them to abandon their spiritual hopes, and return 
to their confidence in the rites of the Levitical law. 

The repetition of this subject is for the purpose of suggesting some new arguments 
in order to enforce it; as may be seen in ver. 5—18. 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. Zeav yap Exwy .. . mpayparwy; moreover, the law, which 
presented only an imperfect sketch of future blessings, and not a full 
representation of those things. xe and ecixwy are related, as the Latip 
umbra and effigies are. The former is an imperfect sketch, a mere 
outline (as we say,) a slight representation or resemblance: the latter 
is a picture or image filled out or completed, and made, in all its 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 2. 451 


minuter parts, to resemble the original. Not that these words are 
always employed with a sedulous attention to these nice shades of sig- 
nification ; but in the case before us they are so, for they are evidently 
contrasted with each other. The meaning of the writer is, ‘‘ The law 
did not even go so far, as to exhibit a full image of future blessings, 
but only a slight adumbration. “Exwy having, containing, possessing, 
affording, or (ad sensum) exhibiting, presenting, so as to accord with 
the nature of the image which follows. 

Népocg means here, the sacrificial ritual law, of which he had _ be- 
fore been speaking; the old WIZ, duaSfjcn, which was to be abolished. 
The whole law of Moses, that is, the moral code which it contains, is 
not the subject of consideration or assertion here. Meddoyrwy ayator, 
the same as in ch. ix. 1]. Tév rpayparwy, i. e. tourer, viz. the future 
blessings just before mentioned. 

Kar’ évavrov . . . retewoa, by the yearly sacrifices themselves, 
which are continually offered, can never fully accomplish what is needed 
for those who approach [the altar.] By the car’ émavroy Svaiate, the 
writer means particularly to designate those which were offered on the 
great day of national atonement; which were considered the most 
sacred and efficacious of all, inasmuch as the high priest then entered 
the inner sanctuary, and presented himself before the mercy seat. 

TIpoopépover, with a nominative not expressed, is equivalent to the pas- 
sive voice here, as often elsewhere, agr@eably to the Hebrew idiom. 

Eicg 70 Civexéc, without cessation, continually, they were repeated 
each successive year. The word is peculiar to this epistle; and 
Schneider has omitted it in his Lexicon; but Elian, Appian, Diodorus 
Siculus, and Symmachus, employ it. 

Tove mpooepyopévove means, the worshippers who approach the altar, or 
the temple, or the Divine presence in the temple. The sense is for sub- 
stance the same, whichever of these be understood. For reXetHoat, see 
on Heb. ix. 9, and vii. 11. The sentiment of the verse corresponds very 
exactly with that in ch. ix. 9, 10. 

Ver. 2. ’Ezet ove dv éxatcarro xpoogepopevac, for otherwise, i. e. if 
the sacrifices could have perfected those who presented them, would not 
the offerings have ceased? To rpoodepduevar most critics subjoin eivae 
understood, which would be equivalent to the infinitive rpoogépectaz, 
rendering the phrase thus, ‘* They (i. e. the sacrifices) had ceased to be 
offered.” The sense of the phrase, thus explained, is the same that I 


452 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 3. 


have given to it. But mpoogepduevar [Suvocae] éravoavro seems to me 
more facile than the other construction. 

Aca 70 pencepeiay ate KexaSappeévoue, because the worshippers, once for 
all made clean, would have no longer been conscious of sins, Aarpevovrac 
designates those who brought the offerings or sacrifices, and on whose 
account they were presented to God, i. e. the worshippers. “Azué 
denotes here, as in the preceding chapter, once for all; the nature of 
the argument demanding this sense. For if a worshipper at one time 
obtained pardon, or was made clean only in respect to past offences, 
(and surely expiatory sacrifices were offered only with respect to the past,) 
this would not prevent the dread of punishment at a future period, when 
new offences would have been committed. To be purified once for all, 
then, was necessary, in order to quiet the apprehensions of such a wor- 
shipper. 

KexaSappévove, purified, atoned for. As caSapiZw means, in Hebrew 
Greek, to make expiation for, to purify by expiatory offering, to pro- 
nounce or declare one to be pure; so KcekaSappévovc of course means, 
those atoned for, those for whom expiration is made, those declared to be 
pure, or rendered pure, aud consequently restored to favour. 

Luveidnow means not merely, conscience, but consciousness, opinion 
judgment, sentiment, apprehension. Xvvetcnow dpapri@y is an appre- 
hension of the consequences of sin, or, a consciousness that one has sub- 
jected himself to them, a conscidusness of guilt. ‘Apaprwy may mean 
here, (as often before,) punishment of sin, consequences of svn, like the 
corresponding Hebrew NOM, NY, YW ; or it may mean sin, guzlt, 
transgression. The writer, however, does not mean to say, that the 
pardon of sin takes away from him, who obtains it, the consciousness 
that he has once been the subject of moral turpitude. This the blood of 
Christ itself does not effect; and in heaven, the consciousness of this 
will for ever raise high the notes of gratitude for redeeming mercy. But 
pardon may and does remove the apprehension of penalty for sin; or if 
by duapriy we understand sin, guilt, simply, then, to be made clean 
(xexaSappévovc) from this, so as to have no consciousness of it, is so to be 
purified, as not to contract the stain of it. 

Ver. 3. "ANN évy airaic . . . éviavrov, nay rather, by these [sacrifices] 
yearly remembrance of sins is made. ’Adda, but rather, nay rather, 
qiiin, quinime ; or, (as I have rendered it in the version,) on the contrary, 
but. Avbraic agrees with Svoiaie implied; see in ver. 1. On the day of 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 4, 5. 453 


annual atonement, the sacrifices that were offered being of an expiatory 
nature, and being designed as propitiatory offerings, they were of course 
adapted to remind the Hebrews of the desert of sin, i. e. of the punish- 
ment or penalty due to it. As they continued to be offered yearly, so 
those who brought them must be reminded, through their whole lives, 
of new desert of punishment. The writer means, however, that a yearly 
remembrance of sin in a spiritual respect, not merely in a civil or eccle- 
siastical one, was made; for in this sense, the yearly atonement pro- 
cured pardon. In the other, it did not; as he now proceeds to assert, 

Ver. 4. ’Advvarov yup .....+ apapriac, it is, indeed, tmpossible that 
the blood of bulls and goats should remove the penalty due to sin. 
’Agaipety &papriag means, to take away sin, in the sense of removing 
the penalty or consequences of sin ; for this is the subject of which the 
writer is now treating. That the author has reference to the conse- 
quences of sin in a future world, or to the punishment of it which God 
inflicts as the spiritual judge of men, is evident from the whole tenor of 
his discussion. One so profoundly versed as he was in all the Jewish ritual 
law, surely was not ignorant of the fact, that civil and ecclesiastical par- 
don for offences of various kinds, was every day procured by the blood 
of bulls and goats, and this, too, agreeably to Divine appointment. 

Ver. 5. Nothing could be more directly in opposition to Jewish pre- 
judices, respecting the importance and value of the Levitical sacrifices, 
than the assertion just made. Hence the writer deems it prudent to make 
his appeal to the Scriptures, for confirmation of what he had advanced. 
This he does by quoting a passage from Ps. xl., which he applies to the 
Messiah, and to the efficacy of the sin-offering made by him. 

Awd eicepydpevoc cic Tov Kéapor, éyer, wherefore, entering into the 
world, he [Christ] says; i e. because the blood of goats and bullocks 
is not efficacious in procuring pardon for sin, Christ, when entering 
into the world, is represented by the Psalmist as saying, viz. in Psalm 
xl. 7, seq. 

Ovciay Kai rpoodopay ove éSénoac, in sacrifice and oblation thou 
hast no pleasure. Ovsia means, a sacrifice of some slain beast, from 
Btw, to kill. So the corresponding Hebrew Mat, from Mat, mactare. 
Ipocgpopa is any thing offered or presented ; and here it means, other 
oblations than those of sacrifices, such as thank-offerings, libations, &c. 
The corresponding Hebrew m3, gift, present, comes from the obso- 
lete root M23, to present, Arabic cio the same. Obx éédyoac, 
Hebrew FSDT Nd, is capable of being translated, thou hast not 


Tr 


454 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 5. 


required, or, thou hast not desired, thou hast no pleasure in, or desire 
for. The latter is, doubtless, the shade of meaning here. The sentiment 
is not, that God had not at all required sacrifices and oblations, for 
this he had done: but that they were, in a comparative sense, of 
little value; they were insufficient in themselves to accomplish the 
higher purposes of his spiritual law, and therefore he had no pleasure 
in them. 

Lopa 6é Karnpriscw po, but a body hast thou prepared for me. A 

very difficult and much agitated expression. If we recur, in the first 
place, to the original Hebrew, we find the corresponding words there to 
be, 5 N12 DIN, mine ears hast thou bie The verb > (from 
722) means, Seal to dig, to hollow out, e. g. a well, Gens XXvl. 25; 
a pit, Ps. vii. 16; or pit-fall, Ps. lv. 7; a ree or grave, Gen. 
1255.2 Chron. xvi..14.. The ‘verb } an?) has also the meaning of pur- 
chasing, or procuring, e. g. water, Deut. il. 6; particularly of hai: 
a supply of food and drink, 2 Kings, vi. 23; also of other things, e. 
a wife, Hosea iii. 2, where MDS has a Daghesh euphonic in the = 
These are all the meanings of this word, which the Hebrew Scriptures 
present. In translating : yah) DIR, then, we may render it either 
mine ears hast thou opened, which is cv oaly a small deflexion from the 
literal sense, (for to dig out a pit or well, is to open one ;) or we may 
render it, ears hast thou provided for me, in which sense the LXX. seem 
plainly to have understood FD, when they rendered it by kaznpriow. 
The former sense seems to be more analogical with the nature of the 
subject, and with the Hebrew idiom. The Hebrews speak of opening 
the ears, and uncovering them, in order to designate the idea of prompt 
obedience, of attentive listening to the commands of any one. E. g. 
Isa. 1. 4, we have yiowd TS : WY, he excited my ear to hear ; and 
in ver. 5 is an equivalent expression, TR ” MAD, he opened mine ear, 
which is explained in the corresponding parallel by "VD Ry) "D381, 
and I was not refractory, i.e. 1 was obedient. So TR nba to uncover, 
to disclose the ear, means, to communicate any thing, or reveal it to 
another; e.g. 1 Sam. xx. 2. 12, 13; ch. xxii. 17. From such forms of 
expression, in Hebrew, with such a meaning, we may very naturally con- 
clude that VP) MD DIN (in Ps. xl. 7,) means, thou hast opened mine 
ears, i, e. thou hast made me obedient, or, I am entirely devoted to thy 
service. And Ps. xl. 8, 9, which exhibits the consequence of having the 
ears opened, leads us almost unavoidably to make such a conclusion, 
respecting the meaning of the phrase in question. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 6, 7. 455 


If this view of the meaning be correct, then another interpretation, 
put upon the phrase by many critics, is not well founded. They render 
it, mine ears hast thou bored through. They suppose the expression to 
be figurative, and to be borrowed from the Hebrew usage of boring 
through, with an awl, the ear of a person who became the voluntary 
servant of another, as described in Exod. xxi. 6. Deut. xv. 17. Mine 
ears hast thou bored through would then mean, “I am, through life, 
thy voluntary servant,” or, “I will be perpetually obedient to thee.” 
This sense, it will be seen, agrees in general with that put upon the 
phrase by the other mode of explanation. But the source of explanation, 
here adopted, does not seem to be admissible. In Exod. xxi. 6, the 
verb bore through is Y¥1, (not 73, as in Ps. xl. 7;) and the instru- 
ment by which it is done, is named YR, an awl, a derivative of the 
verb YI, So in Deut. xv. 17, the instrument named is the same YBN, 
and the action of boring through is expressed by INA NA, thou shalt 
put rt through his ear, (not ND.) That YS) and m2 mdieate very 
distinct actions, is sufficiently plain ; ; for to bore through any thing, and 
to dig or hollow out a pit, grave, or well, are surely very different 
actions, indicated in Hebrew by verbs as different as the English dig 
and bore through. Moreover, in Exod. xxi. 6, and Deut. xv. 17, the 
singular THR i is used, and not as here DIN, both ears. 

The original, then; inv Ps. 'x1,'7. » mi DIN, means, mine ears hast 
thou opened, i. e. me hast thou made readily or ‘attentively obedient ; at 
least, this seems to be the meaning, if we make Isa. 1. 4, 5, our exegeti- 
cal guide. See Excursus XX. 

Ver. 6. ‘Odoxavrwpara cat......ebddKknoac, in whole burnt-offerings 
and [sacrifices] for sin, thou hast no delight. ‘Odoxavrmpara means, 
such offerings as were entirely consumed upon the altar; so the corre- 
sponding Hebrew mip signifies. Tlepi dapriac is an elliptical expres- 
sion, answering to the Hebrew original TRON, and which, completed, 
would be @voiae epi apapriac, sin- offerings. Ovx evddcnoac, Hebrew 
PON x requirest not, desirest not, demandest not, hast no 
pleasure wn. 

Ver. 7. Tére eizoy, therefore I said, or, then I said. The first of 
these versions is approved by eminent critics. They suggest, that if 
zére (Hebrew 38) be referred to time merely, it seems very difficult to 
ascertain what is the precise meaning; for at what particular ¢¢me was 
it, that God did not delight in whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for 
sin? It may, however, be said, that the speaker here refers to the time 


456 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 7. 


when he s disclosing these views respecting sacrifices. Supposing this 
to be the case, rére would mean then, i. e. immediately after this senti- 
ment was declared ; which would be very congruous with the context. 
If rére be rendered therefore, the meaning will be, “‘ because thou hadst 
no pleasure in sacrifices, therefore I said,” &c. Strictly speaking, 
nowever, rore is not tlative. I prefer the other rendering. 

"Idov ikw «24. SéAnpa cov, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy will. (In 
the volume of the book tt is written respecting me.) ‘Icod ijxw expresses 
the readiness of him who speaks, to obey the will of God. 

"Ey Kepadide By3Aiov is a much agitated expression. The Hebrew is 
simply TBD “2793, en the roll, or volume of the book. But how does 
Kepantor (uBdtov cor respond to this? Kegadic denotes the end or extre- 
mity of any thing, as being the head or summit of it. The Hebrew 2D, 
(BXtoy, was a manuscript rolled upon a cylinder of light wood, at ie 
extremity of which were heads or knobs, for the sake of convenience to 
those who used the manuscript. The knob or head, xepaXic, is here taken 
as a part, which is descriptive or emblematic of the whole. Kegadic By 3déov 
means, therefore, a xPdov or WDD, with a cepaNic, i. ¢. a manuscript roll ; 
which was the form of the Jewish eaeiea books, nak is still retained in 
all their synagogues. It coincides, then, with regard to signification, 
very exactly with the Hebrew 1D nyo, of which it is a translation. 

But what volume of manuscript- -roll. - here meant? Plainly, the 
one which was already extant when the Psalmist was writing. If the 
Psalmist was David himself, (as the title of the Psalm seems to affirm,) 
the only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures then extant, and, of course, the 
only part to which he could refer, must have been the Pentateuch, and 
perhaps the book of Joshua. Beyond any reasonable doubt, then, the 
KepaNte [31/3diov (120 n?72) was the Pentateuch. 

But what is there written, and how, respecting the personage who 
speaks in the fortieth Psalm? Rosenmiiller (on Ps. xl. 7.) translates 
the Hebrew Y AND (yéyparrae rept énov) by prescriptum est mihi, 
and appeals to 2 Kings, xxil. 13, for confirmation of this version. He 
compares, also, Gen. i. 16. Ezra i. 2; where bY i is used after Mm and 
TPH, verbs of commanding or enjoining. Gesenius approves this version, 
but produces no other instances to confirm it, which are of the same 
kind. He appeals, indeed, to Esth. ix. 23, where ON i is used after ANd; 
and to Hos. viil. 12. 2 Kings, xvii. 37, and Prov. xxii. 20, where bis 
used after the same verb, in order to confirm this interpretation. But 
the three last cases plainly denote nothmg more, than that the matter 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xX. 7. 457 


referred to was wretten for the use of another, or addressed to him. 
Such, too, is the case with the other example in Esth. ix. 23, as may be 
clearly seen by comparing Esth. ix. 20. With deference to the opinion 
of these very distinguished critics, I must still doubt, therefore, whether 
by AND means prescribere alicut. At most, there is only 2 Kings 
xxii, 13, which is apposite to establish this signification ; and even here 
the meaning in question is not necessary ; for soy AND may be ren- 
dered, with about equal significancy, which was written in respect to 
us, or concerning us, i. e. for our sake, or to regulate our duties. The 
LXX. then, who translated PY AD by yéyparrae repi épod, translated 
it agreeably to the usual idiom of the Hebrew. The apostle, in our text, 
has evidently recognized the correctness of this version. The difference 
in meaning, between prescribed to me, and written concerning me, is a 
considerable one in this case. The first version would represent the 
speaker as saying, “ I come, O God, to do thy will, [i. e. my duty,] as 
I am commanded in the Scriptures to do.” The second, ‘ I come to 
offer my body, or myself, in place of the legal sacrifices; for, in the 
Scriptures, [i. e. in the law of Moses,] this is written concerning me.” 
Now, as to a choice of versions here, it will not be doubted, that the 
latter version accords with the reasoning and design of the apostle, or 
rather, that it is important to his purpose. The first version would not, 
indeed, contradict the design of the apostle; for he might say, it is pre- 
scribed in the Scriptures, that the Messiah should do the will of God, 
i. e. make himself an offering for sin. Compare Luke xxiv. 25—27. 46. 
Acts xvii. 2, 3. 1 Pet. i. 11,12. But I apprehend the meaning of the 
writer to be, that the book of the law, which prescribes sacrifices that 
were merely oxat or rapafodal of the great atoning sacrifice by Christ, 
did itself teach, by the use of these, that something of a higher and 
better nature was to be looked for than Levitical rites. In a word, it 
pointed to the Messiah ; or, some of the contents of the written law had 
respect to him. So Michaélis, Storr, and others. Still, yéyparrac rept 
éuov may have respect to declarations in the Pentateuch, of a different 
and more direct nature. That there are such, Jesus himself affirms, 
John v. 46. So Paul, Acts xxvi. 22, 23. Gal. ili. 16, seq. Construed 
in either way, the amount of the phrase under consideration is, ‘‘ In the 
law of Moses I am described as coming to do. thy will,” i. e. to offer my 
body as a sacrifice: compare ver. 10. 

That the Hebrews, to whom the apostle addressed himself, would 
recognize such an affirmation, and feel the force of it, seems to he 


458 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 8, 9. 


nearly certain, from the fact, that the writer without any hesitation 
addresses it to them, in order to produce conviction in their minds with 
respect to the point which he is labouring to establish. Certain it is, 
then, that both he and the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote be- 
lieved that the Jewish ritual had respect to the sacrifice of the Mes- 
siah, and that he was virtually revealed, in the law of Moses, as a 
suffering Saviour, making atonement for the sins of his people. Were 
this not so, then the argument in Heb. x. 5—10, would be destitute of 
any real foundation, and consequently of any force, as a proof of what 
the writer is labouring to establish. 

‘O Oedc, Heb. THN, O my God. If the Messiah be considered as 
uttering this before his incarnation, and as Logos, then would it be an 
embarrassing circumstance to explain it, how in his simple Divine 
nature he could speak of ‘‘ my God.” But if considered as a prophetic 
anticipation of what he would say, during his incarnation, (and so it 
clearly seems to me the writer_intends it should be considered) then 
6 Oedc, or 6 Bede pov, accords with the usage of the Saviour in addressing 
the Father, as disclosed in the Gospel; Matt. xxvii. 46, al. 

To SéAnpa cov. What this will is, see in ver. 10. 

Ver. 8. ’Avwrepoy NEywy .o0e EbddKnoac, first, he says, “ Sacrifice, 
and oblation, and whole burnt-offering, and [offering] for sin, thou 
desirest not, nor hast pleasure in them.” ’Avérepoy, literally above, 
which is equivalent here, to first, or in the first place. 

“Atrwec Kata Tov vopov xpoodepovtar which are presented according 
to the law. This is a parenthetic explanation, added by the writer, in 
order to show that the same legal sacrifices, in which the Hebrews were 
in danger of placing their confidence, were those which must be super- 
seded by the death of Christ. 

Ver. 9. Tore elpncer «26. TO SéAnpa cov, and then says, “ Lo, I come 
to do thy will.” We might expect cizwy here, instead of eipynkev, for 
the regular construction of the sentence would seem to require it. 
But here is a sentence constructed in the Hebrew manner, which not 
unfrequently begins with a participle in the first clause, and then uses 
a verb in the second, when both stand in the same relation to the sequel 
of the sentence, see Heb. Gram. § 212.2. It is evident here, that dvwre- 
pov A€ywy and rore etonxe both bear the same relation to avarpei, «. r. X. the 
sense of which, I may add, is rendered quite obscure by the period which 
most editors of the Greek Testament have put before it. 

"Avawpet . . . orjon, he abolishes the first, viz. the sacrifices, &e. 


COMMEN'TARY ON HEB. x. I0. 459 


that he may establish the second, viz. the doing of the will of God, 
or the offering of himself as a sacrifice for sin, ver. 10. That is, ‘‘ doing 
the will of God,” or obedience to him even unto death, or the offering 
up of his body, is represented by the Psalmist as a substitute for legal 
sacrifices, and as an arrangement which would supersede them. 

It is quite plain, that dvapei, «.7.. is an inference drawn from the 
two declarations recited in the context immediately preceding; for 
mpwroy certainly refers to the legal sacrifices, and cevrepov to the obe- 
dience of the Messiah, But the construction of the sentence (for 
clearly it is in fact but one sentence) is Hebraistic, as noted above, and 
not according to the rules of classical Greek ; and it affords a notable 
example, how far the style of our author is from the easy, rhetorical, 
flowing method, of which so much has been said by late critics; and 
from that é\Anrexdryne, which even Origen ascribes to him. 

Ver. 10. The writer proceeds to explain what is meant, in this case, 
by doing the will of God, and what is the efficacy of that obedience. 
"Ey p Oedjpare . . . éparat, by which will expiation is made for us, 
by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. "Ev 6 Oedj- 
pare means, by doing which will, 1. e. by whose obedience. ‘Hytacpévor 
écpev, exprata sumus, conciliatt sumus, purificate sumus, literally, we are 
consecrated, viz. to God, which necessarily implies, purified, atoned for ; 
see on dyetfw under ch. i. 11. 

The latter part of the verse leaves no doubt, that the writer meant to 
refer the obedience in question, or the doing of the will of God, to 
“‘ obedience unto death,” to the voluntary sacrifice for sinners, which the 
Saviour offered upon the cross; compare Phil. i. 8. 

The whole amount of the reasoning, in ver. 5—10, is this. ‘‘ Ritual 
sacrifices for sin are not accepted by God, as sufficient to remove the 
penalty due to the moral turpitude of sin. But the obedience of the 
Messiah unto death, the offering of his body on the cross, is sufficient, 
and fully supersedes the other sacrifices.” 

If all this be true, it follows, of course, that what the apostle had 
affirmed in ver. 3, is true, viz. that it is impossible for the blood of 
slain beasts to remove the penal consequences of sin, when considered 
in the light of a spiritual offence, and as having respect to the tribunal 
of God. 

‘Egaraé’, once for all. The idea conveyed by this, is carefully re- 
peated again here, because it concerns a point, in respect to which the 


460 COMMENTARY ON HEB, x. 11, 12. 


Hebrews would be very prone to raise objections. ‘‘ You affirm,” 
they would naturally say, ‘that there is a resemblanee between the 
sacrifice of Christ and the annual expiatory sacrifices by the high priest. 
But there is evidently a great dissimilitude ; for the expiation made by 
the high priest was repeated every year; while Christ suffered only 
once.” The apostle meets this difficulty, by showing, from various con- 
siderations, that being once slain as an expiatory offering, was alto- 
gether sufficient to satisfy the demands of the case. Compare Heb. ix. 
9—14, 25—28; x. 1—3; 10—14. Indeed, Christ, from the nature of 
the case, could die but once, ch. ix. 27, 28. 

Ver. 11. Kal rac pey tepeve seee Suoiac, now every high priest 
stands performing daily service, and oftentimes presenting the same 
sacrifices. de tepeve, every, or any Levitical priest. “Eoryxe, stands, 
denoting the attitude of those who are in waiting or attendance upon 
another, and keep the position of standing, both as a token of respect, 
and asa state prepared for ready service. It is only the perfect, plu- 
perfect, aor. second active, and aor. first passive, of the verb torn, that 
have the intransitive meaning to stand. The other tenses are transitive, 
and mean, fo set, place, station, &c. See Buttmann § 95, and Wahl’s 
Lexicon, on the word; and compare, for a sense of the word like that 
above) Rev. vil. 9, 11; viii. 2. 

Tac avrac ...@voiac. The same daily sacrifices were repeated without 
intermission ; see Numb. xxvii. 2—6. 

Airwec ovdérore .... cpapriac, which can never remove the penalty 
due to sin; compare ver. 1—3. That dyapriac here means penalty due 
to sin, is plain; and that it may be properly so construed, no one will 
deny, who understands the full meaning of NN@M, PY, and YD, 

Ver. 12. Odroc dé piay .... Oeov, but this [priest] having offered a 
sacrifice for sin of perpetual efficacy, sat down at the right hand of 
God. In ver. 11, we have wag iepevc, 1. e. every priest of the common 
order, every Levitical priest; the antithesis is ovroc, which refers to 
Christ, and which (if the ellipsis be supplied according to the gram- 
matical construction of sentences) must mean ovrog tepeve. 

Eic ro dunvexee means the same thing here as Gag in ch. ix, 26. 28 ; 
and égamaé in ch.x. 10. I connect it with @vciay, and not (as Carpzoff) 
with éxdSice. A sacrifice for perpetuity, is a sacrifice once for all, 
éganat, or, it is a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, one that needs not to 
be repeated. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 13, 14, 15, 16. 461 


"Exaduoey éy ceed rou Ocov, see on Heb. i. 3. ’ExaStce here is opposed 
to gornxe in the preceding verse. The latter denotes the attitude of a 
servant ; the former, that of a master or lord. 

Ver. 13. To Nourdy éxdexopevog ... . TOOWY aiTou, thenceforth waiting 
until his enemies be made his footstool. To dourdy means, for the 
rest, viz. of the time; therefore the idea conveyed by Xorroy here is, 
afterwards, thenceforth. ’Excéexopevoc designates the attitude of wait- 
ing or expecting. The idea is, that the Messiah is seated on his throne, 
quietly expecting that his enemies will, in due time, bé all subdued. 

Oi éxSpoi designates all those who are opposed to the character, 
doctrines, or reign of Christ. To make them his footstool, means 
thoroughly to subjugate and humble them; compare ch. 1i. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 
27,28. See the origin of this phrase in the custom described in 
Josh. x. 24. 

Ver. 14. Mia yap rpoogopd .... rove cytagopévovc, by one offering, 
then, he has for ever perfected those for whom expiration is made. 

- Mug rpoogooag, viz. the offering of his own body, ch. v. 10. Teredetwxe, 
see on ch. ix. 9, and ch. x. 1. The meaning is, ‘“‘ He has for ever 
removed the penalty due to sin, and procured for those, who were 
exposed to it, that peace of conscience which the law could never give ; 
compare ver. ]—4. ‘“AyaZopévove, see on ch. il. 11; ix. 13; x. 10. 

Ver. 15. Maprupet Ce jpiv......&ywv, moreover, the Holy Spirit 
also testifies [this] tous. Aé, moreover, a continuative of the discourse, 
here marking the transition to a new paragraph, in which appeal is 
made, by way of confirming what the writer had said. The Holy Spirit 
means, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the Scriptures; as the sequel 
shows, which is a quotation from the Scriptures. ‘Hyiy, to ws, means, 
that the sentiment which the writer had been inculcating, the truths 
which he had declared, are confirmed by what the Holy Spirit says to us, 
i.e. to us and to all, in the Scriptures of truth. 

Mera yap 70 rpoepyxéva, for after having first said, viz. first in order, 
or in respect to time. 

Ver. 16. Atrn f dvaOhxn, x. 7. See on ch. vili. 10, where is the 
same quotation. It is worthy of note, however, that even here, where 
the same passage is appealed to, the words are not all the same. 
In ch. viii. 10, we have 7@ otk ’IopajA; in ch. x. 16, airode; in the 
former, dwode vopove pov cic THY Crdvoray avy; in the latter, didovde 
vOsLoue pov Ext Kapolac avr@y 3 in the former, éxt Kapolac a’roy Etypaww 


\ : = ~ ~ : \ 
aireuc; in the latter, él roy cavowy abroy éemypidbw abroic. Non 


462 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 17, 18. 


refert verbum, sed res ipsa. The meaning of both is the same. De 
minimis non curat lex. 

Ver. 17. Kat roy apapridy, x. 7. X. (see on ch. vili. 12,) then [he 
says] “‘ Their sins,” &c. Kal, then, here evidently marks the apodosis, 
or corresponding and concluding part of the sentiment, and stands as a 
kind of counterpart to po in pera yap TO mpoeipynkévar, ver. 15; other- 
wise the sentence is an example of the anacoluthon. Compare ch. viii. 
10—12, where the distance, at which ray aprapri@y, K. 7. dr. follows the 
first clause, justifies the translation here given to cat; a translation 
which, indeed, is frequently necessary in the writings of the New Testa- 
ment, in order to render the connexion of the sense plain, 

Ver. 18. The writer next proceeds to show for what purpose this 
quotation is here made, i. e. to express the sentiment, that under the 
new covenant, or gospel dispensation, absolute and final pardon is to be 
obtained. “Ozov 0& apeoic .... apapriac, now where there is remission 
of these, there 2s no more offering for sin. 

”Ageowc here means spiritual pardon, or remission, on the part of God, 
as judge and ruler of the world. Tovtrwy, i.e. rotrwy Gpapreoy Kar 
avoju@y, mentioned in the preceding verse. Odxér:, i. e. offering is no 
more needed, is no more presented. 

This circumttance makes a great difference between the new covenant 
and the old one. Under the latter, sacrifices must be perpetually 
repeated ; and, after all, only czvel and ecclesiastical pardon was to be 
obtained by them. Under the former, one sacrifice is sufficient, and 
avails to procure, for all nations, and all ages, spiritual pardon or 
remission of the penalty threatened to be inflicted in a future world. 
Well might the apostle call this a new covenant. 


The writer having gone through a comparison of the new dispensation with the 
old, and having shown, that whether Christ be compared with angels, who were 
the mediators of the Mosaic law, or with Moses himself, or with the high-priest of the 
Hebrews, he holds a rank far above them; having also shown, that whether the 
temple in which he ministers be compared with that at Jerusalem, or the sacrifice 
which he offers be compared with those sacrifices presented by the Jewish priests, either 
as to its exalted nature, its spiritual efficacy in respect to procuring pardon for sin, or 
the duration and extent of its effects, the Mosaic institutions are nothing more than the 
shadow, of which the Christian ones are the substance ; he now proceeds to the hortatory 
and admonitory part of his epistle. In this, various subjects are presented, which the 


COMMENTARY ON IIEB. x. 19, 20. 463 


circumstances of those whom he was addressing rendered it expedient to consider. 
All that was peculiarly attractive to the Jew, in the Mosaic ritual; all that served to 
allure him away from his adherence to Christianity, and expose him particularly to the 
danger of apostacy, the apostle has brought into view, in the preceding part of our 
epistle, with a design to show, that however attractive or important these things might 
in themselves be, there was something still more so in the Christian religion, something 
of which the Jewish religion offered only a shadow or adumbration. Nothing could be 
more apposite, then, to the case in hand, than the argument of the apostle, in the pre- 
ceding part of this epistle. 

The practical application which follows, is designed to excite those whom the writer 
addresses, to constancy and perseverance in their Christian profession, to dehort them 
from apostacy, and to warn them against its tremendous consequences. With his 
warnings, however, the apostle intermingles a great deal of encouragement and promise, 
in order to excite in them an earnest desire to obtain the rewards which would be 
bestowed on all who remained faithful to the end of their course. 

He begins the hortatory part, by an appeal to the great encouragement which 
the present privileges of the Hebrew Christians afforded them, to persevere in their 
Christian profession. 


Ver. 19. "Exovrec ovv, adedgoi .... Incov, since then, brethren, ye 
have free access to the sanctuary, by the blood of Jesus. Oiv, then, 
therefore, or since then.  appyoia, in its first acceptation, means 
boldness of speech, or, the liberty of speaking without restraint. But 
the word is also used to designate freedom from restraint generally 
considered ; which is plainly the case here. Tappnoiav cig rv etoocor, 
literally, freedom in respect to entrance, i. e. free access, unrestrained 
liberty of approach. ‘Ayiwy, i.e. adySuvdy, the heavenly sanctuary, 
or, the presence of God, compare ch. ix. 24. ’Ey 70 aipare "Incod 
denotes, the means by which this access is procured, agreeably to what 
has been shown in ch. vil.—x. 

Ver. 20. "Hy évexaivicev....6@cav, in a new and living way, which 
he has consecrated. ‘Oddy I take to be the accusative of manner, con- 
strued with cara understood ; or it may be considered as a repetition of 
eigocey, and in apposition with it. Ipéegaroy means recent, and has 
reference to the way lately opened by the new covenant or gospel dis- 
pensation. The way is called new, however, not merely because of 
this, but also, because those who draw nigh to God in it, have liberty 
of access in their own persons, to the mercy-seat, and there obtain par- 
don, by means of a sacrifice altogether different from that which was 
offered for worshippers by the Jewish priests. 

Zacav, i.q. Cworowitcay, i. e. cic wiv &yovocay, leading to life, cons 


464 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 20. 


ferring life or happiness. So Gaw is often used in the New Testament. 
But it may mean here, perennial, perpetual, (a frequent sense of faw 
in the Hebrew Greek ;) and this would be altogether congruous with 
the preceding context, which insists on the perpetuity of the sacrifice 
of Christ. On the whole, I prefer the former sense. So Theophylact, 
who assigns the following reason for the epithet Gocay, viz. dre i mpa@rn 
ddd¢ Savarnddpoy iv, i. e. because that any one who entered the inner 
veil of the temple was punished with death. But, here, viz. under 
the gospel, it is the way to lzfe. 

"Evexatvice, consecrated, dedicated. To consecrate a way, is to open 
it for access, to dedicate it to use. So Jesus opened the way of 
access for sinners to the eternal sanctuary, in which, if they go, they 
may obtain free access to God, and pardon for all their offences. 

Ata tov Katamerdopatoc . . . capKog abrov, through the veil, that ts, 
his flesh. 1 translate these words literally, because I am not well 
satisfied that I understand their meaning. The opinions of all the 
commentators, it would be tedious, if not useless, to recite. The prin- 
cipal interpretation, in which the most distinguished of them unite, is, 
that, as the veil of the temple must be removed in order to enter the 
inner sanctuary, so the body of Jesus must be removed (by death,) that 
we might have liberty of access to the sanctuary above. An exegesis 
which, while the facts to which it alludes are true, still presents a com- 
parison incongruous at first view, and seemingly requires a distorted 
imagination, to recognise it with any degree of satisfaction. 

I could more easily acquiesce in the idea, that there is a kind of 
paronomasia here, in respect to the word dua. The form of it may be 
thus expressed. <‘‘ As the most holy place in the earthly temple could 
be approached only through (6k) the veil, i. e. through the aperture 
which the veil covered; so the heavenly sanctuary is approached only 
through (ca implied) the flesh, or body of Jesus.” In this last case, 
out (if employed as here supposed) would mean, by means of, because 
of, on account of, viz. by means of the body of Jesus sacrificed for 
sin, see ver. 10. The paronomasia would consist in using dd, in the 
first case, in the sense of through with respect to place; and, in the 
last case, in the sense of through with the signification of by means of. 
Instances could easily be accumulated, where the same word is employed 
in different senses, in the same sentence. E. ¢. ‘ Let the dead (vexpovc) 
bury their dead,” (vexpovc,) Luke ix. 60; where vexpove, in the first 
case, means morally dead; in the second, physically dead. So 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 20. 465 


2 Cor. v. 21, ‘‘ He hath made him to be a sin-offering, (apaprtay,) who 
knew no sen,” (dapriav.) In like manner the apostle might say, ‘‘ As 
the Jews had access to the inner sanctuary of the temple, dua cararerdo- 
paroc, through the veil, so Christians have access to the heavenly sanc- 
tuary,”” da capKoc, 1. €. dua mpoopopac aapkd¢ Inoov, compare ver. 10. 
And, although I would not admit paronomasia, except in cases where 
there are urgent reasons for it, it seems to be more tolerable here, than 
the other method of interpretation suggested above, and is certainly in 
harmony with the principles of the wsus loqguendi of the sacred writers. 

But, after all, the mind still seems to feel a want of definite satisfaction, 
in regard to either of the methods of interpretation above proposed. May 
I be allowed, in a difficulty of such a nature, to propose at least for 
consideration, a third method of interpreting the expression rij¢ capKdg 
airov? 

In John i. 14, it is said, “‘ The Word became flesh, capé; to which 
the writer adds, cal éoxjywoev év jyiv. In 1 Tim. ii. 16, we have Qedc 
épaveowsn év capxi, Supposing the reading to be correct, (and the evi- 
dence seems to me quite in its favour, and so Dr. Knapp has judged.) 
In Rom. i. 4, a broad distinction is made between the nature of Christ 
kara gapxa and his nature cara rvevpa aywovvne; and in Rom. ix. 5, 
Christ is said to have descended from the Jewish fathers cara capka, 
while he is at the same time 6 éri rayrwy Oedc. In Phil. ii. 6, Christ, 
who was éy poppy Oeodv,—ékévwoev Eavrov, joppiy Cobhov AaBwyv. In all 
these, and in many more passages which might easily be added, the 
human nature or body of Christ seems to be regarded as a kind of tem- 
porary tabernacle, or vez! of the Divine nature which dwelt in him. 
May not our author, in the verse under consideration, have had such an 
idea in his mind, when he wrote rod KATATETAOMATOC, TOUT EoTL, THe oapKoc 
avrov? The idea would seem to be this; ‘‘ As the veil of the temple 
concealed the glory of Jehovah, in the holy of holies, from the view of 
men, so Christ’s flesh or body sqreened or concealed the higher nature 
from our view, (which dwelt within this veil, as God did of old within 
the veil of the temple.) If, on this account, the apostle calls Christ’s 
flesh a veil, then we may easily make out the sense of the verse before 
us. It would stand thus: ‘‘ As God dwells behind the veil, in his 
earthly temple; so God dwells behind the veil of Jesus’ body, in his 
spiritual temple, 1. e. he can be approached only through the medium of 
this, or by means of this.” So the context which precedes; “ free 
access to the sanctuary is év dare Inoov.”” That the writer had in his 

2H 


466 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 2], 22. 


mind a design to compare the veil of the Jewish temple, as the medium 
between the worshipper, and the visible presence of Jehovah, to the body 
of Christ (e%p& avrov) as the medium of access to God, or what must 
interpose between God and him, and this specially in reference to Christ’s 
sufferings and death, seems to be, on the whole, quite clear. But which 
of the ways now proposed will best present this general idea, or whether 
any of them are sufficiently grounded, to be fully admitted, is a question 
on which the reader must be left to judge for himself. My own appre- 
hension, on the whole, is, that the occasion of calling Christ’s flesh a 
veil, or of comparing it to a veil, lies in the views stated under this last 
explanation ; while, at the same time, the actual comparison of the veil 
of the temple and of Christ’s body, is confined to the single point, that 
each ts a medium of access to God. If you say, ‘‘ The comparison is, 
in most respects, without grounds of analogy, and the two things widely 
dissimilar ;” my answer is, that there is as much congruity in it, as there 
is in the comparison between the physical death of Christ, in Rom. vi., 
and the moral death of believers to sin, to which the former is there 
compared. Indeed, between all objects of comparison, when God or 
Christ is one of these objects, there must of course be a dissimilarity that 
is exceedingly great in some repects, although there may be an analogy 
in some others. 

In whatever light our passage is viewed, it will be conceded, that its 
language is far from being in that easy flowing style, which has been so 
often asserted of our epistle. 

Ver. 21. Kat iepéa ......Qe0¥, 1. e. Kal Exovrec iepta, x. 7. d. the 
participle being implied, which was expressed at the beginning of 
ver. 19. Compare ch. iv. 14; v.10; vii. 17.20. 26; viii..1., ‘Iepea 
peyay is the same as Pane) v3, high priest, a Hebraism. ‘Ext roy 
olxoy rov Ocov, compare ili. 1—6, It designates here the spirztual house 
of God, i. e. Christians. 

Ver. 22. [pocepxwpeSa, let us draw nigh, i. €. 7@ Oe@, which is 
implied. The manner of the expression is borrowed from approach to 
the most holy place in the temple, where God peculiarly dwelt. 

Mera adnSuiic......misrewc with a true heart, in full confidence. 
’"AdnSuii¢ means, sincere, faithful, true, and designates sincerity of 
Christian profession, faithful attachment to Christianity, in opposition 
to an insincere or an apostatizing state of mind. I),ypodpopia means, a 
full measure. I1Anpogopig misrewe Means, unwavering, undoubting 
faith, a fulness of faith, which leaves no room for apostacy or scep- 


COMMENTARY ON HER. X. 23. 467 


ticism. How exactly this exhortation was adapted to the state of the 
Hebrews, it is easy to perceive. 

"Eppayriopévoe .... wovnpdc, being purified as to our hearts from 
a consciousness of evil, literally, being sprinkled as to our hearts, &c. 
The expression is borrowed from the rites of the law, agreeably to which 
very many ceremonial purifications, as we have seen, were made by the 
sprinkling of blood either upon persons or utensils, This was external. 
But when the writer says here, éppavriopévor rac Kapdiac, he designates 
spiritual, internal purification, and shows that he is not speaking of 
any external rites. This internal purification is’ effected by the blood 
of Jesus, with which Christians are figuratively said to be sprinkled. 
But the construction, éspavricpévoe . . . awd ... shows that the 
participle éfsavriopévoe is to be taken in the secondary or metaphorical 
sense, 1. e. purified from, cleansed from. 

Luvewhoews wovnpac, a consciousness of evil, or, a conscience op- 
pressed with evil or sin. Perhaps both senses are included ; for both 
are characteristic of Christian sincerity and full faith, which is incom- 
patible with a consciousness of evil designs, and which frees men from 
an oppressive sense of past evil, by inspiring them with the hopes of 
pardon. 

Ver. 23. Kai Nedovpévor . . . kaSapp, having also our bodies washed 
with pure water; another expression, borrowed from the frequent 
washings prescribed by the Levitical law, for the sake of external puri- 
fication. See Exod. xxix. 4; xl. 31, 32. Lev. xvi. 4; also ch. vi. 
xiv. xv. et alibi. It seems to me, that here is a plain allusion to the 
use of water in the initiatory rite of Christian baptism. This is alto- 
gether consonant with the method of our author, who is every where 
comparmg Christian institutions with Jewish ones. So, in the case 
before us, he says, ‘‘ The Jews were sprinkled with blood, in order that 
they might be purified so as to have access to God; Christians are 
internally sprinkled, i. e. purified by the blood of Jesus. The Jews 
were washed with water, in order to be ceremonially purified so as to 
come before God ; Christians have been washed by the purifying water 
of baptism.” So Ananias exhorts Saul to be baptized, and wash away 
his sins, Acts xxii. 16. In this latter case, and in that before us, the 
phrase is borrowed from the legal rite of washing for purification. In 
Heb. x. 23, no particular stress is to be laid on the mere external 
rite of washing the body; for the connexion shows, that the whole is 
designed to point out the spiritual qualifications of sincere Christians 

2n2 


468 COMMENTARY ON HEB. xX. 24, 25. 


for access to God. But the manner of expression turns wholly upon a 
comparison with the Jewish rites. 

Karéxwpev ry duodoyiay .... émayyeddpevoc, let us hold fast the 
hope which we profess ; for faithful is he who has promised. ‘Opodoyiav 
means, professzon or confession of the Christian religion, which is here 
called édxidoc, in reference to the hopes which it occasions or inspires. 
The idea is, ‘‘ Let us firmly retain our profession of that religion which 
fills us with hope respecting future rewards and happiness.” 

Mordg yap 6 érayyeapevoc, i. e. let us firmly adhere to our religion, 
because God, the author of those promises which it holds forth, will 
certainly perform them; he is faithful, i. e. true to his word, and alto 
gether worthy of confidence in respect to his promises. 

Ver. 24. Kal xaravodpev .... épywv, let us also bear in mind one 
another, so as to excite to love and good works. Karavowpey, consider 
attentively, have a regard to, think upon, or bear in mind. The writer 
means, that it is the duty of the Hebrews to cherish a mutual spirit of 
interest or concern for each other; and this, in such a way as would be 
the means of mutually exciting each other to more distinguished benevo- 
lence and good works. The perils to which they were exposed, rendered 
such advice very timely. 

Ver. 25. Mn) éyxaraXeimovrec .... mapakadovrrec, not forsaking the 
assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom ofsome ts, ) but admonish- 
ing [one another.] ’Eyxaradeirovrec is in the same construction with 
karayo@pev in ver. 24, and consequently agrees with *ete understood. 
‘Eavr@y relates to the first person plural here; as it does elsewhere, 
e.¢. Rom. vii. 23. 1 Cor. xi. 31. 2 Cor. 1:9; x2 125 1435) ainwlike 
manner, mapakaovyrec requires addfdrove to be mentally supplied after 
it; which is expressed after ckaravodpev. That mapaxadéw means to 
admonish, any common lexicon will show. ‘The whole sentence is in 
the usual manner of the writer, who very frequently employs koivwote in 
warnings and admonitions. 

Kai rocovrp paddov . . . ijpépav, and this [do] so much the more, as 
ye see the day approaching. ‘That is, be more earnest and constant, in 
mutual admonition and efforts to excite each other to Christian diligence 
and perseverance, in proportion as the time draws near, when the judg- 
ments denounced against the Jewish nation, by the Saviour, will be 
executed. ‘Hygpay, Czy, is doubtless an elliptical expression for *jpéoav 
kupiov, MT DY; a very common expression of the Hebrew writers, for 
a time of distress, of chastisement; a time in which God executes the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 26. 469 


threats which have been uttered by his prophets, Compare Psalm 
XEXKVIO Lo. Psam. xxvi.c LO.” Ezek, xxi. 25> ‘xin. 5) “Job xvii, 20° 
mxiv. leenanes'v. Lo. Jer. xxx: 7.: Joel 1,°15_) “Isa, 8. 19> Rev xvi. 14: 
et alibi. Now, as Christ had foretold the destruction of the Jewish 
temple and nation, (which could not be unknown to the Hebrew Chris- 
tians,) what could be more natural than for the apostle to say—‘ Bre- 
thren, do every thing in your power to guard against apostacy. And 
this the inore, because a return to Judaism would now be very ill-timed ; 
the season is near, when the Jewish temple and state are to be des- 
troyed.” All this is surely very apposite to the case in hand. 

But if we should suppose (with not a few of the recent commentators) 
that the writer here alludes to the day when Christ should reappear, and 
commence a visible reign on earth, (which they suppose the apostles to 
have believed in common with many individual Christians of early times,) 
then I could not perceive so much force in the apostle’s argument. It 
would run thus: ‘ Be very strenuous in using all means to guard against 
defection from Christianity to Judaism; and this so much the more, 
because, in a little time, Christ will commence his visible reign on earth.” 
I will not deny, that the hope of reward for perseverance in Christian 
virtue, to be bestowed under this new order of things, might be used as 
an argument to dissuade from apostacy; but plainly, the argument as 
above stated is more cogent, and more to the writer’s purpose. How it 
can be proved to any one, after he has read and well considered Paul’s 
second epistle to the Thessalonians, that this apostle believed in the 
immediate and visible advent of Christ, is more than I am able to see. 

For these reasons, I hesitate not to apply the phrase, jjpépay éyyiZovear, 
to the time in which the Jewish state and temple were to be brought to 
an end. 

Ver. 26. ‘Exovsiwe yap .... Suaia, moreover, should we voluntarily 
make defection from our religion, after receiving the knowledge of the 
truth, no more sacrifice for sin remaineth. ‘Exovciwe, I apprehend, is 
not to be construed here with metaphysical exactness, but has reference 
to the common and acknowledged distinction in the Jewish law between 
the sins of oversight or inadvertence, (732W,) and those of presumption. 
For the first class, see Lev. iv. 2. 13. 22. "97, Numb. xv. 27—29; for the 
second, Numb. xv. 30,31, where the presumptuous offender is described 
by the expression, T7 PA MW}, TWN, who acts with a high hand. 
That this is the kind of offence to which the apostle alludes, is evident ; 
for he distinguishes it expressly from the sin of oversight or inadvertence, 


470 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 27, 28, 29. 


(722%, ) by saying, that it is committed after being enlightened by the 
gospel. ‘Exovoiwc means then, deliberately, with forethought, with 
settled intention, and not by merely sudden and violent impulse, or by 
oversight. 

That dpapravdy7wy, in this case, refers to the sin of apostacy, is quite 
plain from the context and the nature of the case, as well as from the 
object which the writer has in view. ’AdySeiac, true doctrine, i. e. the 
gospel, Christian instruction. 

Ovk ére .... Suvoia, i. e. if you make defection from Christianity, and 
renounce your hope and trust in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, no other 
is provided, or can be provided, for you. No other makes real atone- 
ment for sin; this being renounced, therefore, your case is desperate. 
The sacrifice under the new covenant is never, like the Jewish offerings, 
to be repeated. Apostacy from your present religion, then, is final 
perdition. 

Ver. 27. @uBepa dé tte . . . brevavriove, but a kind of fearful expec- 
tation of punishment, yea, of burning indignation [awaits us,] which 
will consume the adversaries. Kpioewc often means, condemnation, and 
sometimes the consequences of it, 1. e. punishment, as here. Zijdoc rupog 
is equivalent to the Hebrew i183} WN, Zeph. i. 18, which means vehe- 
ment displeasure, severe punishment, fierce flames. Both éxdoxy and 
éj\oc are nominatives to awoXelrerar understood. ’EoSiew, consume, 
devour, destroy, like the Hebrew DDN, Deut. xxxii. 22. So Homer, 
Il, xxxill. 182, ravrac rip éoSier. ‘Yrevayriove designates all who oppose 
themselves to the character, claims, and kingdom of Christ. 

Ver. 28. ’ASerijoac ric . . . arroSvhoKxer, whosoever violated the law 
of Moses, suffered death without mercy, in case there were two or three 
witnesses. The meaning is not, that every transgression of the Mosaic 
law was punishable with death, but that in all the cases which were of a 
capital nature, death without reprieve or pardon was inflicted, where suf- 
ficient testimony could be had. See Numb. xv. 30, 31. 

"Ent vow i} rpiot padprvoww, see Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15. The Hebrew 
v2) Y is rendered éxi by the LXX.; and well, for ézi denotes, in case 
that, on the condition that, any thing is done, or happens. The mean- 
ing plainly is, ‘‘ provided two or three witnesses testify to a crime worthy 
of death.” 

Ver. 29. dow, doxeiré . . . xarararijoac, of how much sorer punish- 
ment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God? Aoxeire implies an appeal, on the part of the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 29. 471 


writer, to the conscience and judgment of his readers, who, it is taken 
for granted, will decide according to his own views in respect to the 
point in question. ’AéwSfoerac is applied either to desert of reward, or 
of punishment; just as we say, in English, ‘‘ The man is worthy of 
reward,” or ‘‘ worthy of death.” 

Karararijoag signifies, to treat with contempt, to spurn at, to treat 
with contumely. Apostasy from the Christian religion implies this ; 
and the peculiar criminality of it is here argued, from the superior claims 
which Christ has, on every account, to regard and fidelity. 

Kai 70 aia .... tysaoSn, and hath regarded the blood of the cove- 
nant, by which he hath been consecrated, as unclean. The mode of 
expression is taken from the Jewish rites. When the people of Israel 
renewed their covenant with God, Moses sprinkled them with blood, 
Heb. ix. 19, 20; Exod. xxiv. 8. This is called the blood of the cove- 
nant. So, under the new covenant, when Christians are consecrated to 
the service of Christ, and make an open profession of his religion, (as 
the people of Israel did of theirs,) they are figuratively said to be 
sprinkled or cleansed with the blood of Jesus: compare Heb. ix. 14; 
x. 22 3 xu. 202° 1: Cor. ‘x1. 252° John's: 7.2 1 Pets a a9; Reve: 
And as they enter into covenant with Christ at such a time, pledging 
themselves to obedience and fidelity, so the blood with which they are 
said to be sprinkled, is called the blood of the covenant. The sense of 
the expression is plainly spiritual, but the form of it is borrowed from 
the Jewish ritual. 

Kowor irynodpevoc, regarding it as common or unclean, i e. as blood 
not consecrated, but like any common blood; therefore, as having no 
consecrating or cleansing power, as not having set apart those, who 
were sprinkled with it, for the peculiar service of God in the gospel, 
nor laid them under peculiar obligations to be devoted to the cause of 
Christ. 

‘Ev 6 hyyutaSn, by which he has been consecrated, i. e. to Christ, 
set apart for his service; another expression, borrowed from the Jewish 
rite of consecrating things to the service of God in the temple, by 
sprinkling them with blood. See on ch. ix. 22. 

Kat ro rveipa rife xapiroc évufpicac, and hath done despite to the 
Spirit of grace. ’EvuBpicac designates the idea of treating with spite, 
or malignity, or contempt ; and is nearly equivalent to xcarararjoag 
above. ITIvevpa rije xapiroc means, either the gracious Spirit, or the 
Spirit who bestows grace, i. e. religious spiritual favours and gifts. 


472 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 30, 31. 


Compare 1 Cor xii. 4—11. But many commentators i:terpret zvedpa 
Tie \yapirog aS Meaning simply grace, or gospel blessings. But this 
does not accord with the idioma of our epistle; comp. ch. vi. 4, where 
apostates are described as having been perdyove mvevparoc ayiov. The 
question, however, whether rvevua here means agent or influence, is 
not so easily settled; for the sense is good and apposite, interpreted in 
either way. I incline to adopt the former meaning. 

Ver. 30. This awful warning the apostle follows up with a quotation 
from Scripture, descriptive of the tremendous nature of the punishment 
threatened. Oldapey yup .... Kipsc, surely we know him who hath 
said, To me belongeth punishment, I will inflect zt. The passage is 
quoted from Deut. xxxu. 35, pbuh Op 9, to me belongeth punishment 
and retribution.  "Exdixnow, like the Hebrew OP3, literally means 
vengeance, revenge. But as this is evidently spoken of God only 
aySpwrordSwe, the meaning is, that God does that which is analogous 
to what men do when they avenge themselves, i. e. he inflicts punish- 
ment. ‘The idea is rendered intense, by the subsequent intimation, that 
the almighty, eternal God will inflict such punishment. 

Agyet Kiptoc are words of the apostle, not of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
and are probably added here, to show the end of the quotation made, 
and to enforce the threatening; for in the same way, the Hebrew 
prophets often expressed themselves when they uttered comminations, 
adding to them mm ON], thus saith Jehovah. 

Kai rédtw . . . Aady avrov, and again, “* The Lord will judge his 
people.” This quotation may be either from Deut. xxxi. 36, or Psalm 
exxxv. 14, both places containing the same expression. If it be from 
the former place, then it is on account of the clauses that intervene 
between the first quotation and this, that the writer says, cai raduv. If 
from the latter, then the reason for subjoining cal zaXuy, is still more 
evident. 

Kovvet means here, as often, to pass sentence of condemnation, to sub- 
ject to punishment, to punish. The corresponding orixoc, in the Hebrew, 
clearly shews that such is the sense of the original }*7), for it runs thus, 
both in Deut. xxxii. 36, and Ps. exxxv. 14, om ry i, and on 
his servants will he take vengeance. Probably the expression in Psalm 
exxxv. 14, is a mere quotation of Deut. xxxil. 36. 

Ver. 31. Well may the writer add, gofepoy .... Zaévroe, it ts a fearful 
thing to fall into the hands of the living God. ’Epmeoeiv cic rae xeipac, 
ye, 233, means, to be at the disposal of his vindictive power, i. e. of 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 32, 33, 34. 473 


his punitive justice. It is a Hebraistic mode of expression, for the 
classic writers say, weoety tro rac xeipac —Zwyroe probably here means, 
ever-living, as it commonly does elsewl-ere, when applied to God. This 
idea, moreover, augments the dreadful nature of the punishment; which 
is altogether apposite to the writer’s design. 

Ver. 32. The writer now proceeds to enforce his admonition against 
apostacy, by holding up to the Hebrews encouragement to persevere 
from the experience of former days, when they remained steadfast amid 
many trials and sufferings. 

"AvapurijoxesSe o€ Tac mpdrepov . . . madnparwy, call to mind, now, 
former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great 
contest with sufferings. That is, ‘“‘ Faint not, be not discouraged, at 
the prospect of trials. Look back to the time when ye patiently endured 
severer trials than ye now suffer, and still persevered. Continue to do 
as you have already done.” 

‘Hpépac, like the Hebrew DD is often used for time, season, indefi- 
nitely. wrieSévrec refers to the illumination which they received, when 
the knowledge of the Christian religion was first imparted to them. 
What the &SAnow taSnparwy was, is explained in the verses which follow. 

Ver. 33 Totro pév . . . Searpilopevn, partly because ye were made a 
public spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions. Totropéy.... 
rovro o€ correspond, and when thus related, bear the sense which is here 
given to them. ’Ove:dropore refers to the reproachful appellations and 
language, addressed to Christians by their persecutors; S)diweor, to the 
various sufferings inflicted upon them by the same. In this way, they 
were exposed to public view, SearpZdpevor, i. e. held up to the world as 
persons worthy of reproach and ill-treatment, or made a spectacle to the 
world as sufferers of these things, and thus loaded with disgrace. 

Totro dé . . . yevynSévrac, and partly because ye were associated 
with those who were thus treated. That is, a part of their 49Anore con- 
sisted in the sympathy which they were called to exercise towards others 
who were reproached and persecuted. ’Avaorpégopar I have rendered 
as having a passive sense here, viz. who were thus treated ; and so many 
critics render it. Still it would be difficult to find a classical example of 
giving to this verb a passive sense, inasmuch as it is commonly used in 
the middle voice, and employed as a verb neuter deponent. I have 
translated ad sensum. 

Ver. 34. Kai yap . . . ovveraSioare, for ye did truly sympathize 
with those who were prisoners. Instead of deopioc, prisoners, some 


474 COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 35, 36. 


manuscripts and editions, with several of the fathers, have Ceapoitc pov ; 
which is the reading of the received text, and is preferred by Matthie, 
Michaélis, Carpzoff, Noesselt, and others. But deopioue has the weight 
of authority in its favour; it is sufficiently consonant with the con- 
text; and it is, perhaps, on the whole, more natural to suppose the 
writer to have spoken of ‘‘ sympathizing with prisoners,” than ‘ with 
bonds.” There is no important objection, however, to the latter expres- 
sion; and if Paul be the writer of our epistle, cecpoic pov gives a very 
emphatic meaning. 

Kai tiv aprayiy ... xposectLasSe, and cheerfully endured the 
plundering of your own property. This was a part of the Srdpecc 
which they had suffered in former times. 

Twaoxorrec Exew . . . pévovcav, knowing that ye have for your- 
selves, in heaven, a possession of a better and more lasting nature. 
"Eauroic, dativus commodi. “Yrapiw, any thing possessed, estate, pro- 
perty. Kpeirrova, better than earthly possessions, i. e. spiritual, hea- 
venly, not material and earthly. Mévoveay, enduring, permanent, not 
perishable, fleeting, temporary, like all earthly possessions. 

Ver. 35. My a@zofddnre . . . peyadny, cast not away then your con- 
Jidence, which will obtain a great reward. That is, act as you formerly 
did, and thus gain possession of the xpeirrova kal pévoveay ixapkuy. 

Ver. 36. ‘Yrouovijg yap . . . émayyedav, ye have need, no doubt, 
of patience, in order that when ye have done the will of God, ye 
may receive the promised blessing. Patience they needed, because of 
the many trials and temptations to which they were still exposed. 
Tap, surely, truly, and, (which is equivalent,) it is true, no doubt. 
The writer means as much as to say, “I readily concede, that patience 
is requisite, in your present circumstances, in order that you should 
persevere.” To do the will of God, here, is to obey the requirement, 
to believe and trust in Christ. “Exayyeiav thing promised, reward 
proffered ; for the promise itself they had already received. ‘Exay- 
yerdiay here, and puslarocociay in ver. 35, both refer to the trap 
Kpeitrova kat pévoveay mentioned in ver. 34, and which is there repre- 
sented as promised to them in case of obedience. 

Ver. 37. “Ere yap puxpiv ...- xpomet, however, yet a very little 
while, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. That 
is, the Messiah (6 épydépevoc) will speedily come, and, by destroying the 
Jewish power, put an end to the sufferings which your persecutors inflict 
upon you. Compare Matt. xxiv. “Ovsoy Ggoy is an intensive form 


-_ 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. x. 38. 475. 


of expression, which is applied either to things great or small, like 
TID, TN, It is employed in the like way, however, by the classic 
Greek authors. The whole phrase resembles that in Hab. ii. 3, 
WIN? Nd Na N29 , for zt, (viz. the vision) well surely come to pass, 
it will not delay. If, however, it be an actual quotation, the appli- 
cation of the words is different from that of the original, and the 
writer designed merely to use the language to express his own ideas. 
In fact, the Septuagint version of the passage in Habakkuk, differs 
slightly from the words used by-+the apostle. It runs thus, dre épx6- 
pevoc ijtery Kal ov yl) xpovion. It seems quite probable, (considering 
the quotation from Hab. ii. 4, which follows,) that the apostle had the 
Hebrew expression above quoted in his mind. But it seems equally 
plain also, that he has made use of it only as the medium of express- 
ing his own particular idea, and not as a designed quotation used 
according to the exact idea of the original. I have marked it as a 
quotation, however, in my version, because the words appear to be 
quoted. 

Ver. 38. ‘O &é dixawoge ex mioTewe Choerar, the just, too, shall live 
by faith. In Hab. i. 4, itis WIINA pPrys), which (if rendered 
according to the accents) will be, The just by faith shall live, i. e. 
the just man who has faith shall be preserved. The expression in our 
verse is capable of the same translation, and Dr. Knapp has pointed it 
so as to be construed this way. But I apprehend, after all, that this 
is not the meaning of either the Hebrew or Greek phrase. Fath 
is put here as the means of preservation, in opposition to apostacy or 
defection, in the other part of the verse, which is the means of destruc- 
tion or disapprobation. ‘‘ A persevering confidence or belief in Christ,” 
(the writer means to say,) ‘‘ will be the means of preservation, when 
the Lord shall come to execute his judgments upon the Jewish nation.” 
So the LXX. understood the phrase, which they have rendered 6 ¢é 
Oikawg &k riatewo pov Choerac; as if they read *WINA instead of 
WaNA, The meaning of é« ziorewe pov, must of course ‘be, by faith, 
or " confidence in me, which expresses the condition of being saved, 
rather than the peculiar character of the person who is saved. I 
understand the expression, in Hebrew and in our epistle, ina similar 
way. If the apostle meant to quote here, it is evident that he has not 
adhered to the text of the Septuagint. ? 

Kai éay trooreiinra . . . év abr, but if any one draw back, my 
eoul hath no pleasure in him. I hesitate whether to translate cai here 


476 COMMENTARY ON BEB. x. 09. 


as the disjunctive but, or to consider it as an elliptical expression 
for nat Ayer, 1. e. Kal Aéyer 6 Oede vel Fj ypap). The latter resembles 
the usage of this epistle; see ch. i. 10: ch. x. 17. The former sense, 
(cai, but,) is quite common in the New Testament writers. Either 
method of interpretation is consistent with idiom, and with the scope of 
the writer. I have, on the whole, preferred the antithetic form of the 
sentence, and rendered kat, but. 

"Ea trooreiinra, Kk. r. X. seems plainly to be a quotation from Hab. 
il. 4. The apostle, however, has changed the order of the verse, quot- 
ing the latter part of it first, and the former part last. The original 
Hebrew runs thus, 12 W253 Th ND mEy it, behold, the scornful, 
his mind shall not be happy ; ; or (as Gesenius cance See! he whose 
soul 2s unbelieving shall, on account of this, be unhappy. The LXX. 
who have rendered the Hebrew in exact accordance with the words of 
our epistle, must have read WEI here, as they did IW INA in the 
clause preceding. This is the more probable reading, but it cannot 
now be critically defended. We can only say, therefore, that the 
quotation of the apostle is, on general grounds, ad sensum, but not 
ad literam. The sentiment of the Hebrew is, that the scorner or un- 
believer of that day should be unhappy; the sentiment of the apostle, 
that the unbeliever, i. e. the apostate Christian who renounces his reli- 
gion, shall incur Divine disapprobation. The same sentiment lies at the 
foundation, in both cases. Such disapprobation the last clause ex- 
presses, ov« evdoxet f) Wuxi pou év av’r@, where the negative form of expres- 
sion is employed (as often in sacred and also classical writings) instead 
of the affirmative, i. e. ‘‘ he shall be an object of my displeasure.” 

Ver. 39. “Hyeic dé obk . . . awwAecay, but we are not of those who 
draw back to destruction. ‘YroaroXje is the abstract noun, shrinking 
back, timidity, withdrawing ; and (as is common) the abstract is here 
put for the concrete, i. e. for persons who withdraw or shrink back, 
viz. from their Christian profession. The consequence of such with- 
drawing is amw)era 3 see ver. 26, 27. 

"AdXGa rloTEws, Eig TEpiToinow Wuyxitc, but of those who believe to the 
salvation of the soul. Tepuroinow means literally, obtaining, acquiring, 
possessing. But as it is here placed in antithesis to admwAeay, it 
plainly means, saving or salvation. Tiorewc, faith, belief, is an ab- 
stract noun used instead of a concrete, in the same manner as trog- 
rodj¢ above. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xI. 1. 477 


Having mentioned faith, or belief, confidence, as a peculiar and most important 
characteristic of those who persevere in the Christian religion, so as to secure their sa 
vation; the writer now proceeds, with great force and propriety, to make his appeal to 
the Old Testament Scriptures, in order to show that faith or confidence in the Divine 
promises has, in all ages, been the means of perseverance in true religion, and conse- 
quently of salvation. In ch. x. 34—39, the apostle had exhorted his readers to per- 
severe in waiting for the rewards of a future world, trap iv obpavoic KpEirTova Kai 
pévovoay .. . puoSarodociay peydrnv .. . Tv txayyediav. He now goes on to 
show more fully, that the very nature of faith, and the character of believers, demand 
this, All believers, in every age, have done so: and the Hebrews ought to follow their 
example. See, on the nature of the faith brought to view in this chapter, p. 129. 
et seq. 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 1. The general nature of fazth is first explained. "Eom 6é 
mioric . . . PrETopévwy, now farth ts confidence in respect to things 
hoped for [and] convincing evidence of things not seen. ‘Yrdaraaie, 
confidence, confident expectation. Others, with Chrysostom, ‘ Faith 
gives reality or substance to things hoped for.” The sense is good; but 
the shade of meaning is not exactly hit. If this were the idea of 
imdaraoic, we might expect the antithetic word to be dowpdrwy or avidwy 
incorporeal or immaterial things, instead of édrigouevwv. The use of 
irdoractc, in the sense of confidence, §c. belongs to the later Greek, and 
is frequent in the New Testament. This sense is evidently appropriate 
here. The writer had just been exhorting his readers not to cast away 
their confidence or boldness, which would ensure a great reward, ch. x. 35. 
If any one should object to this exhortation, that the objects of reward 
were all future and unseen ; the reply is, that “ the very nature of belief 
or faith implies confidence in respect to objects of this nature. All the 
patriarchs and prophets possessed such faith.” ’E)mZopévwy means, 
things future which are the objects of hope, and not of present fruition. 
The things future are the rewards which have just been mentioned above. 

"Edeyxoc, demonstration, proof, convincing evidence. This last idea I 
have expressed in the translation. The meaning is, that faith in the 
Divine word and promises is equivalent to, or supplies the place of, proof 
or demonstration, in regard to the objects of the unseen world, i. e. it 
satisfies the mind respecting their reality and importance, as proof or 
demonstration is wont to do. 


478 COMMENTARY ON HEB. Xf. 2, 3. 


That the faith here brought to view, and adverted to through ch. xi. is 
not specifically what some theologians call saving fazth, viz. faith in 
Christ in an appropriate and Limited sense, is evident from the nature of 
the examples which aresubjoined by the writer; e.g. ver. 9—5.7,8.11, &c. 
In this chapter, faith is belief or confidence generally in Divine decla- 
rations, of whatever nature they may be; for it does not always have 
respect even to promises, or to the future ; e. g. ver. 3. Now, the same 
confidence in what God declares, respecting subjects of such a nature as 
are brought to view in this chapter, would lead the person who exercises 
it, to confidence in all which God might declare respecting the Messiah, 
and consequently to belief in Christ. It is then called by theologians, 
saving faith. But it should be remembered, that this is only a con- 
venient technical phrase of modern theology ; not one employed by the 
sacred writers. The:true and essential nature of faith is, confidence in 
God, belief in his declarations ; and whether this be exercised by believ- 
ing in the Scripture account of the creation of the world; or, as Abei, 
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and others, exercised it, in respect to 
specific objects; or, by believing on the Messiah; it is evidently the 
same disposition of mind in all cases. It is confidence in God. It is, 
therefore, with perfect propriety, that our author here excites the Hebrews 
to persevere in their Christian faith, by various examples which exhibit 
the power of faith in the ancient worthies, as a principle of pious and 
virtuous belief and action. 

Ver. 2. "Ev ravrn yap ...+-- mpeaPurepot, on account of this, more- 
over, the ancients were commended. Maprvpéw not unfrequently means, 
to applaud, praise, commend, openly signify approbation. See Wahl’s 
Lexicon, No. 2. This is evidently the sense of the wore here. 

Ver. 3. Iioree vootpev . . . yeyovévar, by faith we perceive that the 
worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things which are 
seen were not made from those which appear. Miorer, confidence, in the 
account which the Scriptures (viz. Gen. i.) give of the creation. It is 
confidence in Ged, too; for there could be no other witness of what was 
then done; at least, there could be none of the human race. Noovper, 
we perceive, apprehend, attain to an apprehension of. KarnprioSa., 
ordinare, disponere, not simply to create or bring into being, but also to 
fit, prepare, form, i. e. reduce to form end order. ’Ayvac, worlds, i. e. 
the universe, oadiy; see on Heb. i. 2. That aidvac, in this case, 
cannot mean snore or evum, is sufficiently plain; for in what tolerable 
sense could the writer say, that seculum or zvum was, not made 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 3. 479 


Ek Qatvomevwy, 1. q. was made éx pu} patvopEvwr, or, out of nothing? That 
the assertion in the negative form, is of the same import as if it were of 
the positive form, might be easily shown by appeal to a multitude of the 
like cases of Nerérne, in the Scriptures. ‘“‘ John confessed, and denied 
not, but confessed,” John i. 20; where ov« jprvhcaro plainly conveys the 
same idea as ®poddynoe. As to classical usage, the commentary on the 
next clause may be consulted. In what sense, too, could seculum or 
evum be called Brexéueva? This word means, objects visible to the 
sight, or palpable to the#enses, i. e. material objects. Pawépeva means the 
sare thing; there being no more difference between the two words, in 
Greek, as characterising objects, than there is between seen and apparent 
in English. The assertion of the writer then is, that ‘ visible objects, 
i. e. the visible creation, did not spring from objects that were apparent,” 
i. e. that the visible creation was not made out of matter before existing; 
which is the same as to say, that the world was created, brought into 
existence by the word of God simply, and was not a mere reducing to 
order materials that before existed; see on the succeeding clause of the 
verse, in the sequel. At all events, the idea of a seculum or evum 
‘being framed (karnpricSac) by the word of God,” presents an incon- 
gruity of which no example can be found in the sacred writers. Equally 
incongruous would éoinae rove aidvac, in ch. 1. 2, be, if aiwy were to be 
rendered seculum. ‘Pipare Oeod, the command of God ; compare Gen. 
ivd1609. TN} 1420324, 26. Psp xxxiin6) 2yPete nid: 

Eic 70 pur) €k datvopévwy ra Prerdpeva yeyovevac, a controverted, and 
somewhat difficult expression. If we construe it as the text now stands, 
the «») must naturally be joined with yeyorvévat, and it must be rendered, 
so that things visible were not made of things which do appear. Accord- 
ingly, Pierce insists on this construction, and maintains that the sense is, 
‘So that things visible might appear not to have been made of things 
apparent, i. e. out of pre-existing matter.” 

Those who adopt a different construction of the passage maintain, that 
eic TO pu) EK Gatvopévwy may be translated, as if it were written cic 7d éx 
fo) darvopévwv. That such a metathesis of the negative jn), or its equi- 
valent ov ovx, is allowable, or at least that it is not uncommon, they 
endeavour to show by appealing to examples; e. g. 2 Mace. vii. 28, dre 
ov« €& OvTwy éroinoey avra 6 Odc, which plainly means, “ God made 
them [heaven and earth] from things that do not exist, i.e. out of 
nothing. So Arrian, exp. de Alex. VII. 23, ‘‘ These things I do not 
blame, unless that ov« ért peydadorg preyaduwe Creorov Cagero, he was too much 


480 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 3. 


occupied with small matters; where ovx« seems to qualify ueyadoe. 
Plutarch, Pedagog, IX. 15, ‘‘ I should say that promptitude of speak- 
ing on any matter is not to be altogether disapproved; nor, on the 
other hand, rairny ovx ext akiowe aoxety, 2s tt to be practised in respect 
to trifling subjects.” So the Greek ovk Eon etvac, he sad he would not 
come. Arrian, Anab. I. 5, 6, ob« t¢n xpijvae év Oy TidecSar Abrapiarac 
he said that’ the Autariatae were not to be put into the account. 
Polyb. p. 1331, Tove uy Paskovrac Grodvey, saying that they were not 
to be absolved. If the examples where ¢npi is @sed be abstracted from 
the others, there are still a sufficient number, they aver, to show that a 
metathesis of the negative particle ji) is not without parallels. 

Chrysostom also transposed po) here, and found no difficulty in it. 
He paraphrases it thus, 2 obk dvrwy ra byra éxoinoey 6 Oedc* EK THY juy 
garvopévoy, TA Parvopeva’ EK TOY pL} bpectoTwy Ta tpecTGra. So the Vul- 
gate, Erasmus, Luther, Wolfius, and most of the later interpreters. 

That the metathesis of pu), in this case, so as to construe it in con- 
nexion with gawopévwy, may be admissible, there can, indeed, be but 
little doubt. Yet it is, after all, unnecessary ; for the phrase plainly 
has the same meaning, when translated agreeably to its present arrange- 
ment, if the nature of such a dirdrn¢ be well understood. There is no 
need of understanding the examples cited from the classics in a dif- 
ferent way. And, indeed, take them which way we will, (either by way 
of metathesis in respect to the ov« or ju), or of joming the negative 
with the verb or participle that follows,) the sense, all must admit, 
is plain, and is substantially one and the same. These examples, it 
must also be admitted, cast sufficient light upon the sense of the pas- 
sage, Heb. xi. 3, so as to require no hesitation about admitting a mean- 
ing so well supported by parallel examples, and which, indeed, the 
context seems to demand. 

We may also compare phraseology of a like nature, to be found in 
other parts of Paul’s writings. In Rom. iv. 17, he says, ‘ God restores 
the dead to life, and calls 7& pu) dvra we Gyra,” 1. e. summons [to fulfil 
his own purposes] things that do not exist, as though they did exist. 
In like manner, Philo, in Lib. de creat. mundi, p. 728, says, ra yap po 
dvra Exddnoev 6 Cede eic rd eivac, things which existed not, God called 
into existence. That po) gavopévwy is equivalent to jx) dyrwy, needs 
not to be formally proved. So in Hebrew, N38'2] quod invenitur, is a 
customary expression for ens, or exzstens ; and N32) ND, for res non 
existens, nihilum. 


Q 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 4. 481 


On the whale, then, we must regard the phrase in question as equiva- 
lent to the expression in our language, ‘‘ The visible creation was 
formed from nothing,” i. e. it came into existence by the command of 
God, and was not formed out of any pre-existing materials. Deus ex 
nihilo mundum fecit, conveys the same idea. Such a phrase does not 
mean, that nothing was the material out of which the world was con- 
structed, for there would be no sense in this; but it merely denies 
that any such material existed. This entirely agrees with the pre- 
ceding clause of the text, which asserts that the command of God 
brought the universe into existence; and this is altogether confirmed 
by Gen. i. Here Moses represents, in ver. 1, the heavens and earth 
as first brought into existence by Divine power, and afterwards as 
formed and arranged into their present order; compare Gen. i. 1, 
with Gen. i. 2, and the sequel of the chapter. In fact, if the manner 
of assertion in our text be strictly scanned, it will be found to be more 
exact and philosophical than the Latin, ex nihilo Deus mundum fecit, 
or the English, God made the world out of nothing. Each of these 
phrases presents the seeming incongruity of asserting, that nothiig was 
the material out of which the world was made. But our author is more 
strictly conformed to philosophical propriety, when he says, ‘Things 
visible were not made out of things that are visible,” i. e. the visible 
creation was brought into existence by the word or command of God 
simply, and was not formed or fitted up out of any pre-existing mate- 
rials. Exactly so do we find the assertion in 2 Mace. vii. 28, ob é 
ovrwy éxoinoev ava 6 Ozdc, God did not make them [heaven and earth] 
out of things existing, |. e. he strictly created them. 

Well may it be suggested, that faith in the divine word was requisite 
to believe this; inasmuch as Thales, Plato, Aristotle, and other eminent 
philosophers, who followed not the divine word, indulged in speculations 
about the creation of the world, which were either very visionary, or 
quite different from the view which Moses has given. 

Ver. 4. Tiare: rielova .... 79 O8@, by faith Abel offered to God 
a better sacrifice- than Cain. IlAciova, better, more excellent; so 
frequently, e. g. Matt. vi. 25. Luke xii. 23. Matt. xii. 41, 45. Mark 
xii. 33. Luke xi. 31. Heb. iii. 3. Rev. ii. 19. 

On what account the sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable, com- 
mentators have speculated much, and assigned a great variety of causes. 
But it may be asked, Does not our text contain a solution of this 

21 


482 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 5. 


question ? Abel made his offering in fatth ; the implication is, that 
Cain did not. 

Ai ij¢ gpaprupSn . . . Osov, on account of which [faith,] he was 
declared to be righteous, God himself commending his oblations. How 
this was done, is not said in Gen. iv. 4. But most probably it was by 
fire sent from heaven, which consumed the sacrifice; compare Gen. xv. 
17. Lev. ix. 24. Judg. vi. 21. 1 Chron. xxi. 26; ch. xxvii. 1. 1 Kings 
xviii. 38. The appellation décasog is given to Abel, in Matt. xxii, 35. 
1 John, iii. 12, 

Kai di abrije aroSavwv Ere Aadei, and by it, though dead, he con- 
tinues to speak. Ai aidrijc, viz. by his faith. Aadet and dadetra are 
both supported by good authorities. The latter is preferred by Grotius, 
Hammond, Schmidt, Valkenaer, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Bengel, 
Griesbach, Schulz, &c.; the former by Wetstein, Matthie, Heinrichs, 
Knapp, &c. and has the majority of manuscripts, versions, and editions, 
in its favour. Where the balance of authority is, on the whole, nearly 
equal, I cannot well hesitate to prefer Aadei to Aadetrace The sense of 
the latter would be equivalent to paprupeirar, sc. laudatur, is com- 
mended. But this idea has been twice suggested before in the same 
verse, by paprupeirae and paprupotyrog . . . Oeov. It 1s hardly pro- 
bable that it would be a third time repeated. But dadez, I apprehend, 
has reference to Gen. iv. 10, where the ‘‘ voice of Abel’s blood is said 
to cry to God from the ground.” In Heb. xii, 14, also, our author 
represents the blood of Christ and of Abel as speaking, Xadovyre. The 
form of expression only, in our verse, seems to be borrowed from the 
thought in Gen. iv. 10; for here it is the fatth of Abel which makes 
him speak after his death; viz. he speaks by his faith, to those who 
should come after him, exhorting and encouraging them to follow his 
example. In other words, his example of faith affords admonition and 
instruction to succeeding ages. 

Ver. 5. Miorer’Evoy ..+. 6 Oedc, by faith Enoch was translated, 
that he might not see death; and he was no more found, because God 
had translated him. Tot jr iceiy is equivalent here to cic 7d pi) ideiv, 
or dua 70 py ideiv. The Hebrew has DTN ik MP2, God took him, 
where our author uses peréSnxe. The original, in Gen. v. 24, says 
nothing respecting the point, whether Enoch was translated alive, or 
after death. Kat ovy ebtpioxero is the Septuagint version of the Hebrew 
YPN, he was not, sc. he was no more among men. The idea, in the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 6. ; 483 


Hebrew and Greek, is for substance the same; for ovy etpioxero means, 
he was no more to be met with, he was no longer extant (R372 N?) 
among men. But all the Targumists, viz. Onkelos, Jonathan, and the 
author of the Jerusalem Targum, understand Enoch to have been trans- 
lated without dying. So the Comment. Bereschith Rabba, parasch. 
25. f. 28. So, probably, the son of Sirach, ch. xlix. 14. I may add, 
that this is a very natural deduction from the brief notice of Enoch’s 
translation in Gen. v. 24. Early death is commonly represented in 
the Old Testament as the punishment of sin; and that the wicked 
should not ‘live out half their days,’’ was the persuasion of most good 
men in ancient times. If, then, Enoch died before translation, how 
could his removal to another world have been regarded as an evidence 
of his extraordinary piety? The texts to which Dindorf has appealed, 
in his notes added to the commentary of Ernesti, are very far from sup- 
porting the position, that the ancient Jews regarded premature death 
as a testimony of Heaven in favour of him who was the subject of it. 
Nor is there any need of Rosenmiiller’s concession here, viz. that the 
apostle, in his account of Enoch’s removal, has accommodated himself 
to the Jewish traditionary opinions. It may indeed be, that a tradition 
existed among the Jews, that Enoch ‘“‘ did not see death.” But that 
this was founded in fact, seems to be plainly deducible from the manner 
of the narration in Hebrew, and the state of opinion in ancient times 
respecting early death. 

IIpo yap ric «... 79 Og, he is commended, also, as having pleased God 
before his translation. The Hebrew says, pris DR yan UN 
and Enoch walked with God, which denotes a state of communion and 
friendship with God, and implies, of course, a complacency in the Divine 
mind with respect to him. The apostle, therefore, appeals to the sense 
of the Scriptures in this case, and not to the words. Nor does he mean 
to say, that the testimony respecting Enoch’s pleasing God was given 
before his translation ; but that testimony given, viz. in the Divine word, 
respects his having pleased God before his translation. Evapeoréw 
governs the dative. 

Ver. 6. The writer now suggests the grounds on which he builds the 
conclusion, that Enoch was translated on account of his faith ; viz. 
xwple b& miorewc .+.++- evapectijza, but without farth it is impossible 
to please [him.] The truth of this he rests upon his own declaration, 
and the common opinion on this subject, which he trusted that all his 
readers entertained. 

212 


484 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 7. 


Muoretoar yap dei ....-. yiverar, for he who cometh to God must 
believe that he exists, and that he wall reward those who seek him. 
Ilpocepxopevov Te Oew designates him who worships God, Det cultorem ; 
see ch. vii. 15. The phraseology is probably derived from going up to 
the temple to worship, in the sanctuary of which God dwelt by his 
peculiar presence. Some have understood the phrase as referring to an 
approach to God in the invisible world, in heaven ; but the idea here is 
like that expressed by the Hebrew phrase, govng to God, returning to 
him, &c. which aay denote, ‘‘ approach, in the present world, to his 
spiritual presence.’ 

Tote éxLyrovew abrdy, compare the Hebrew, DVN WRB, WIT which 
are employed to designate the worship and prayers of those who are 
piously devoted to the service of God. 

The two fundamental truths of all that can properly be called religion, 
are here adverted to. The first is, a belief that God exists; the second, 
that he is the moral governor of the universe, i. e. that he rewards those 
who are pious, and, consequently, punishes those who are not so. He 
who denies this, denies all that sanctions religion, and makes it binding 
upon the consciences of men. 

Ver. 7. Toret see. olxov avrov, by faith Noah, being divinely 
admonished respecting the future, with reverence prepared an ark for 
the safety of his household. XpnpariSeic, compare ch. viil. 5, and 
Gen. vi. 13, 14; ch. vii. 1—5.  Mnydérw Breropévwr, i. e. the future 
flood, no signs of which were as yet visible. EvAanSeic may be taken 
either in the sense of fearing, viz. the destruction which was coming ; 
or it may be understood of the reverence which he paid to the Divine 
admonition. I have translated it as bearing the latter sense, since this 
makes most directly for the apostle’s object, which is to exhibit the faith 
which Noah exercised with regard to the Divine warning. 

Eic swrnpiay, for the saving, or safety. It is often applied to temporal 
security or deliverance, like the Hebrew myaw. 

Ai fie Karéxpive «.«. KANpovdpuoc, by ation [faith] he condemned the 
world, and obtained the justification which is by faith. *He I refer to 
nisrewc, as do Sykes, Heinrichs, Dindorf, and others. Kéopov means 
wicked men, men of a mere worldly spirit ; as often, in the New Testa- 
ment. Noah condemned these, by an example of faith in the Divine 
warnings, while the world around him remained impenitent and unbe- 
lieving. In other words, his conduct condemned theirs. 


’"Eyévero kAnpovopioc, 1. q. éxAnpovopnoe, 1. e. obtained, acquired, became 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 8, 9. 485 


possessor of. So Abraham is, in like manner, said to be justified by 
faith or belief, in Rom, ch. iv., viz. belief in the promise of God 
respecting a future seed. On account of Noah’s faith, he was counted 
PTS, ofkawe, (compare ver. 4, above,) or, he was regarded, treated, 
as ducatoc. 

From this verse, then, we may conclude, that faith may be of a 
justifymg nature, i.e. such as is connected with the justification or 
pardon of the individual who exercises it, without being specifically 
directed to Christ as its object; for here, the object of Noah’s faith was, 
the Divine admonitions and comminations in regard to the flood. This 
only serves to show, that faith, in its generic nature, has been the same 
in every age; and that it is, essentially, a practical belief in Divine 
declarations. 

Ver. 8. Ucoree kadovpevoc...-KAnoovopiay, by faith, Abraham obeyed, 
when called to go forth unto the place which he was to receive for a 
possession. See Gen. xii. 1—4. Kandovpevoc, summoned, invited, bid. 
’"EEedSciv, viz. from his own country and kindred, Gen. xii. 1. Tézov 
means the land of Canaan, Palestine, the future possession of which was 
promised to him. His fazth, in this case, was manifested by believing 
in this promise. 

Kai é6p\Se .... toxerar, yea, he went forth, not knowing whither he 
was going. Kai é&j\Se adds intensity to the preceding trhxovee; and I 
have translated it accordingly. The meaning is, ‘‘ he even went out, 
ignorant of the place to which he was going ;”’ which serves to give a 
higher idea of the strength of Abraham’s faith, than if we should suppose 
him to be well informed respecting the land of Canaan, before he 


” 


went to it. 

Ver, 9. Wioree rapwxnoev ....c&ddorpiay, by faith he sojourned in the 
land of promise, while it belonged to strangers. Wiorer, by faith he 
did this, i.e. by confidence in the promises which God had made 
respecting the future possession of this land, and respecting his offspring, 
he was moved to sojourn in Canaan, while it belonged to foreigners, 
‘Qe, while, when, as often; see Wahl. ’Addorpiay means, that which 
belongs to another, quod alieni est, non sut. 

’Ey oxnvaic Karohoac, .... avrijc, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and 
Jacob, who were likewise heirs of the same promise. That is, the pro- 
mise was made to Abraham and his seed. What was not fulfilled in 
him, was to have its accomplishment in them. Hence, svy«Anpovdpuwvr, 
fellow-heirs, joint-possessors, viz. with Abraham; tie same promise 


486 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 10, 11. 


being made to them as to him, respecting the land of Canaan, and their 
future posterity. 

Ver. 10. "Eedéyero yaip....Oevc, for he expected a city which hath 
foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Oepediove Exovear, 
firmly built, well founded. The plural, Seuediove, augments the idea 
of firmness of construction. Anpuovpyoe means, originally, one who 
labours for the public good, from djpuog publicus, ad populum pertinens, 
and gpyoyv opus. Hence, secondarily, it is transferred to designate 
a labourer or artificer of any kind. It is often applied by the heathen 
writers to designate the Divinity; and by Philo, Josephus, and the 
Christian fathers, it is employed as an epithet of the true God. Here, 
however, it is used as nearly a synonyme of rexvirne; the latter convey- 
ing the idea of a builder skilled in the rules of his art, but dnprovpyde¢ 
meaning, more simply, maker, builder, fabricator. 

The meaning of the whole verse most evidently is, that Abraham 
looked for a permanent abode in the heavenly country, i. e. his hopes 
and expectations were placed upon the world to come. It was faith in 
this, which was é\eyyoe ov SAeTopévwy, and which moved him to obey the 
commands of God, and to do and suffer whatever he required. The 
fact, then, that saints under the Old Testament were moved, in their 
conduct, by considerations that had respect to the invisible world, or an 
immortal state of existence, is plainly implied here, by the reasoning of 
the apostle. See ver. 14. 16. 

Ver. 11. Mioree cai air) . . . thaPe, by faith, also, Sarah herself 
received the power of conception. Lior, by faith; how, or when ? 
For when God announced to Abraham, that he should have a son by 
Sarah (Gen. xviii. 10,) she seems to have been in a state of unbelief, 
Gen. xviii. 12. But although it is true that Sarah laughed on that 
occasion, and it must be admitted that this was occasioned partly by 
her incredulity, as Gen. xvill. 13—15 shows; yet the same thing is 
affirmed of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 17. The truth is, the first annunciation 
that a child would spring from them, occasioned, both in his and Sarah’s 
mind, a feeling of incongruity, of impossibility that the course of nature 
should be so reversed. Subsequent consideration brought both to a full 
belief in the reality of the promised future blessing. The history of this 
is not expressly given in Genesis, with respect to Sarah, but it is implied. 

Kai airh Sappa, Sarah herself also. Kai airy, in this case, refers 
particularly to the fact that Sarah was barren, Gen. xvi. 1, and 
that she was far advanced in old age, Gen. xvii. 11. The meaning is, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 12, 13. 487 


that faith gave even to Sarah, unpromising as her condition was in 
respect to offspring, the power of conception, i. e. by faith she obtained 
this blessing. Eic¢ caraPBoXdjv orépparoc, words tortured to the disgust 
of every delicate reader, by some of the critics. Even Wahl says, 
“she received strength eic 10 déyeoSat oréppa caraPeAArAnpevor (i. e. by 
Abraham,) ei¢ rv pirpay.” Did this need any supernatural strength? 
I construe the phrase very differently, Karafod} means, foundation, 
commencement, beginning. Now, what is the foundation, or commence- 
ment, orépparoc, of offspring or progeny? Conception. The true idea 
of the phrase, then, appears to be fully given by the version above. In 
this view of the phrase, I observe, Dr. Schulz concurs, rendering dvvapw 
ei¢ KkaraPodjy orépparoc, by das Vermogen zur Empfangniss, the power 
of conception. 

Kai rapa kaipoy . . . érayyeddpevoy, and this beyond the usual time 
of life; inasmuch as she regarded Him as faithful, who had thus pro- 
mised. Kat rapa karpdy, see Gen. xviii. 1]. ’Ezet musrov, x. r. X. which 
shews that the apostle considered it as quite certain that Sarah, like her 
husband, did come to full confidence in the Divine promise. 

Ver. 12. Aw kat ag’ évoc, . . . tAHSer, wherefore, even from one 
who was dead too, as to these things, there sprung [a seed] like the 
stars of heaven for multitude. Aco, on account of which faith, viz. of 
Sarah, or, perhaps, of Abraham and Sarah. Kai aq’ évdc, even from a 
single individual, is a designed antithesis to the multitude who are after- 
wards mentioned. Consequently it heightens the description. Kai ravra 
vevexowpevov means incapable (according to the ordinary laws of nature) 
of procreation ; Kal ...++. vevexpwptévov, 1. e. not only one ewdividual, 
but one dead also. See the same description, in Rom. iv. 19. Tatra is 
governed by xara understood. Ka%we ra dorpa, x. 7. X. that is, a very 
great number; compare Gen. xv. 5; mexara) Be 

Kai we i dppoc .26.. avapidpunroc, and like the sand upon the shore 
of the sea, which cannot be numbered, i. e. an exceedingly great multi- 
tude. Xeidoe Sadacone, literally, Zip of the sea, which means the shore. 
So the word is used by profane Greek writers also ; as dabium is by the 
Latin ones. So the Hebrew 7IDW, Gen. xxii. 17, which compare. 

Ver. 13. Kara wiorw ...... érayyenriac, these all died in faith, not 
having received the blessings promised. Otrot ravrec—who? Abraham, 
Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah, mentioned in ver. 8—12; for ovroe cannot wel. 
be here extended to all who are mentioned in the preceding part of the 
chapter, because the ‘‘ promised blessings’’ were those which were assured 


488 COMMENTARY ON HEB. xI. 14, 15, 16. 


to the Hebrew patriarchs. "Erayyediac, not promises, (for these they 
had received,) but blessings promised, according to the idiom of this 
epistle. What were these blessings, heavenly or earthly ? The sequel 
will answer this question. 

"AAG TOppweV ....4 yiic, but seeing them afar off, and joyfully 
anticipating them, they openly professed themselves to be strangers 
and sojourners on the earth. The application of this whole verse to the 
expectation of the future possession of Canaan, and of a numerous pro- 
geny, would be admissible, were it not for the sequel, (ver. 14—16,) 
which plainly forbids such an application. In addition to the faith of 
Abraham, and other patriarchs, in the promises of God, which had 
respect to temporal blessings, I understand the apostle as here asserting 
that those ancient worthies also exercised confidence in God’s word, 
respecting the blessings of the invisible world ; i. e. theirs was tréoracte 
éAriLopévwv seeee. OU PAEropévwy. Those things which are invisible to 
the corporeal eye, they saw with the eye of faith, and seeing, hailed them 
with joy, (aoracdpevan,) welcomed them, greeted them, or anticipated 
them with gladness, as we joyfully greet or anticipate the approach of 
a beloved friend, or of some distinguished favour. And, looking 
forward to them as their chief source of happiness, they openly declared 
themselves to be only strangers and sojourners in the present world. 
That yijc, by itself, might refer to the land of Canaan, is plain enough ; 
but that it does so refer here, is rendered quite improbable by the sequel. 
The idea is plainly more general. Taperidnpoc means, a temporary resi- 
dent among any people, i. e. a sojourner. 

Ver. 14. Ot yap roaira ...... emisnrovor, now they, who thus pro- 
fess, show that they are yet seeking for a country. Tatra déyorTec, 
viz. saying or professing that they were strangers and sojourners in the 
earth. Tlarpida, a fixed or permanent place of residence, i. q. wow 
pévovoay, ch. xill. 14, or wédAw Sepediove Eyovoay in ver. 10, above. 
That this zwarpic was not of an earthly nature, the writer proceeds to show. 

Ver. 15. Kai ei pey éxeiyne «0.02. avaxaprpa, for had they cherished 
the memory of that [country] from which they came, they had oppor- 
tunity of returning [thither.] That is, if their native country on earth 
(rarpic) had been an object of affectionate desire, they might have 
easily returned thither, and dwelt there. But this they did not; for, 

Ver. 16. Nov dé dpéyovrat ...... érovpaviov, but now, they were 
desirous of a better, [country,] that is, of a heavenly one. Niv, i.e. 
while they were strangers and sojourners, during the time then present 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 17, 18. 48% 


The explanation of the writer, in respect to the country which the 
patriarchs sought, is so plain, that nothing can add to its perspicuity. 

Awd ovk éxauoyiverar 2... TOA, Wherefore God is not ashamed of 
them, [nor] to be called their God; for he hath prepared a city for 
them. Av, because, viz. because of the faith which they reposed in the 
promises of God respecting future happiness, or in regard to a wow 
éxoupaviov or pévovoay. To be their God means, to be their protector, 
rewarder, benefactor; compare Rom. ili. 29, Rev. xxi. 3. 7. Exod. iii. 6. 
Zech. viii. 8. Gen. xv. 1. ‘Hroipace yap abrotc modu, 1. e. he will 
reward them, for he has in fact prepared a wd, sc. érovpdvwy, for 
them. By ellipsis ob« éracoxvverae is Omitted before Oedc érikadeioSar 
avror. 

Ver. 17. Iiore: xpocevivoyev . . . reipagopevoc, by faith, Abraham 
when tried, made an offering of Isaac. Wpocevhvoye, made an offering 
of ; for the act, on the part of Abraham, was essentially done when he 
had fully resolved to do it, and was proceeding to the complete execution 
of it, Gen, xxi. 1—10. TletoaZopevoce (like the Hebrew D2) means, 
either to put to trial, or to tempt, i. e. solicit to sin. Which of these 
senses the word must bear, in any particular passage, must depend on 
the character of the agent who occasions the trial or temptation, and the 
objects which he has in view. Beyond all question, 1D} in Gen. xxii. 1, 
and epagépevoc in our verse, are to be understood in the sense of trial ; 
for God is the agent, and “‘ he tempts no man,” i. e. solicits none to sin, 
James i. 13. 

Kat rov povoyevij .... avacetapevoc, yea, he who had received the 
promises made an offering of his only Son. Gen. xxii.2. This clause is 
designed to augment the force of the description of Abraham's case. It 
was not simply that Abraham, in circumstances common to others, i. e. 
surrounded by several children, and without any special promises, made 
the offermg in question; but it was Abraham, to whom God had 
repeatedly made promises of a numerous progeny; and it was Abraham’s 
only son, i. e. only son of promise, who was the offering which he stood 
ready to make. 

Ver. 18. IHp0c¢ ov . . . oxéppa, unto whom it had been said, Re 
Isaac shall thy seed be named. The Hebrew, in Gen. xxi. 12, 
yu 71? NP? pra, which means, thy seed shall be named ie 
Isdao, i.e. “thy aeeds viz. the seed which is promised to thee, must 
descend only from Isaac. Neither Ishmael, nor the sons of Abraham by 
Keturah, could be progenitors of the promised offspring, and give name 


490 COMMENTARY ON HEB. xI. 19. 


to them. The Septuagint and apostle have rendered tle Hebrew prepo- 
sition 2, in PTs)4, by év, which there means, according to, with refe- 
rence to, after. This is a third circumstance added, in order to augment 
the impression of the reader respecting the faith of Abraham. This 
patriarch, to whom promises had been made, not only offered up his only 
son, born of Sarah his beloved wife, but his only son, on whom all the 
promises of God respecting his future progeny were suspended. 

Ver. 19. Aoytoapevoc, drt kai . . . Osdc, counting that God was able 
to raise him even from the dead; 1. e. he believed, that, in case Isaac 
should be actually slain and consumed as a burnt-offering, God could 
and would raise him up from the dead, so that the promise made to him 
would be fulfilled. This was, indeed, a signal example of the strength 
of faith, and it deserves the commendation which the apostle bestows 
upon it. 

There are not wanting, however, critics of the present time, who 
attribute this whole transaction of Abraham to his superstition, or his 
heathenish views of sacrifice, or to a dream which he erroneously con- 
sidered as a divine admonition. And in regard to the interposition from 
heaven, which prevented his resolution from being executed, they aver, 
that the accidental discovery of a ram caught by the horns in a thicket, 
was interpreted, by the superstitious patriarch, as a Divine admonition to 
refrain from proceeding with his design. How different all this is, from 
the views of the author who wrote Gen. xxii., of Paul in Rom. iv., and 
of the writer of our epistle, need not be insisted on to any one, who does 
not make his own conceptions about the subject of religion and miracles 
the standard by which the sacred writers are to be tried. 

"OSev avrov .... éxopicaro, whence, comparatively, he obtained him, 
or whence, as it were, he obtained him. It would occupy much room 
even to glance at the variety of interpretations which have been put on 
this somewhat difficult phrase. Instead of this, I will simply state the 
one which appears to me altogether the most probable and satisfactory. 
Paul, speaking of the procreation of Isaac, in Rom. iv., mentions Abra- 
ham as then vevexpwpévoy, and the véxpwouw ric phrpac of Sarah. In 
ver. 12 above, the same apostle speaks of Abraham as vevexpwyévoy ; and 
his description of Sarah, in ver. 11, implies the same thing. Now, as 
Isaac sprang from Abraham and Sarah, both cara ratra vevexpwpévor, 
what is more natural than to suppose, that in our verse this fact is 
adverted to? The sentiment seems to be this: ‘¢ Abraham believed that 
God could raise Isaac from the dead, because he had, as it were, obtained 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xI. 20, 21. 49] 


him from the dead, i. e. he was born of those who (xara raira véxpot 
jjcav.) Then the whole presents one consistent and apposite sentiment. 
Abraham believed God could raise his son from the dead. Why? He 
had good reason to conclude so, for God had already done what was 
equivalent to this, or like this; he had done this, évy rapafordy, in a 
comparative manner, i. e. in a manner that would compare with rising 
from the dead, when he brought about his birth from those who were 
dead as to the power of procreation. TTapafod7 means, comparison, 
similitude ; év rapaf3ohn, comparatively, in like manner, with similitude, 
asit were. Thus all is easy, natural, and consistent. How forced the 
other methods of construction are, which have been employed here, 
the reader may determine for himself by consulting them. 

It may be made a question, whether éxopuicaro refers here to Abraham’s 
having obtained Isaac from the altar of burnt-offering, where he was as 
it were dead; or whether the word refers to Abraham’s having originally 
obtained him, viz. at his birth. It may be applied to either; but the 
latter application is far more significant, and accords altogether with 
the context. The hints for this explanation I owe to Dr. Schulz, in his 
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Ver. 20. Iioree rept peddovrwy....’Hoad, by faith Isaac blessed 
Jacob and Esau, in respect to the future. Tept peddrQOvrwy evr\oynee, 
literally, blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to future things. The 
sentiment is, “‘ pronounced a blessing upon Jacob and Esau, in regard 
to their future condition ;’’ which accords with the facts as related in 
Gen. xxvii. 26—40. It was faith in the promises of God, which enabled 
the dying patriarch to do this. 

Ver. 21. Tiore: laxofa .... evd\oynoe, by faith Jacob, when about to 
die, blessed each of Joseph’s sons. See Gen. xlviil. 15,16. ’AroSvjoxwr 
here, like the present participle in Hebrew, has the meaning of the Latin: 
future in rus. It was not in the act of dying, that Jacob blessed the 
sons of Joseph, as Gen. xlvili. 8—22 shows; but it was when on his 
death-bed, that both they and the twelve sons of Jacob were blessed by 
him: see Gen. xlvil. 31; xlviil. 2; xlix. 33. 

Kai rpocextyynoev .... avrov, and bowed himself upon the top of his 
staff. This last action did not accompany the blessing of the sons of 
Joseph; at least it is not related in connexion with it, but as preceding 
it. See Gen. xlvii. 31; compare xlvii. 1.15, 16. I regard it, there- 
fore, as a separate transaction. Tpocextynoe (Hebrew IFW») designates, 
as it would seem, the act of worship or reverence, paid to God, and 


492 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 2]. 


occasioned by the grateful emotions of the dying patriarch, on account 
of the promise which his son Joseph had just made, to bury him with 
his fathers. That the Hebrew, WW, and the corresponding Greek, 
mpocexuvnoe, are sometimes employed simply and merely to designate 
an act of religious worship, is plain from 2 Kings v. 18. Gen. xxii. 5 

1 Sam. i. 3. That MAW generally means worship or reverence, by 
bowing down toward the earth, or even to the earth, is sufficiently plain ; 

but that, in some cases, it also designates worship simply as a religious 
act, without necessarily implying a particular position of body, is sufhi- 
ciently plain from 1 Kings i. 47, where it is said of David, in extreme 
old age, and confined to his bed, ADwiT by 727 IAW, he wor- 
shipped upon his bed; a phrase constructed exactly like that in Gen. 

xlvii. 31; in both of which cases, Gesenius says, the act of worship is 
signified without bowing down. This is indeed clear from the nature of 
the position, and the infirmities of Jacob and David. If the reader 
wants evidence of a similar meaning of tpooxvvéw, he may consult John 
iv. 20—24; ch. xii. 20. Acts vill. 27; ch. xxiv. 11, &c. 

The only question of difficulty that remains is, whether the present 
yowel-pointing of the Hebrew, MIT UNI oY, upon the head of the 
bed, is probably more correct than the Septuagint mode of reading the 
Hebrew, viz. MO%2i7 WNT oY, upon the top of his staff. I have no 
hesitation in preferring the later punctuation ; for what is moa UN, 
the head of a bed, in the Oriental country, when the bed itself is 
nothing more than a piece of soft carpeting thrown down upon the 
floor? And what can be the meaning of Jacob’s bowing himself upon 
the head of the bed? For, (1.) there is no evidence that Jacob was 
upon the bed, when Joseph paid him the visit recorded in Gen. xlvii. 
28—31. It was after this, that Jacob was taken sick, ch. xlviu. 1, 
and sat up on his bed, when Joseph came to visit him, ver. 2. (2.) An 
infirm person, lying upon a bed, if he assumed a position such as to 
bow himself, would sit on the middle of the bed, and not upon the 
head of it. (3.) In all the Scriptures, the head of a bed is not once 
mentioned ; and for a good reason, as the Oriental bed had, strictly 
speaking, no head. For these reasons, I must regard Jacob as leaning 
upon the top of his staff for support, when he conversed with his 
son Joseph; than which nothing can be more natural, for a person 
of his very advanced years. In this position he was when Joseph sware 
to him, that he would comply with the request which he had made 
in respect to his burial. This was so grateful to his feelings, that he 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 22, 23. 493 


spontaneously offered up his thanks to God for such a favour; q. d. 
he worshipped upon the top of his staff, i. e. leaning upon the top 
of his staff, he offered homage or thanks to God ; just as David ‘‘ wor- 
shipped upon his bed,” i. e. did homage, or paid reverence to God, 
while on his bed, 1 Kings, i. 47. 

That the present vowel-points of the Hebrew do not, in every case, 
give the most probable sense of the original, will not appear strange te 
any one who reflects, that they were introduced after the fifth century 
of our present era. All enlightened critics, of the present day, disclaim 
the idea that they are authoritative. 

The apostle says, that by fazth Jacob worshipped. I understand 
this of that confidence in God which he entertained, and which led him 
to trust, that all which Joseph had promised him, would be accom- 
plished. 

Ver. 22. Tiorer ‘Iwop .... évereiharo, by faith, Joseph, at the 
close of life, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, 
[from Egypt,] and gave commandment respecting his own bones. See 
Gen. |. 24—26; Josh. xxiv. 32. Tedevrov, see on aroSvhoxwy, in ver. 
21. ’Everei\aro, i. e. he commanded that his bones should be carried 
up, out of Egypt, to the land of Canaan, when the Israelites removed 
thither. It was by faith in the promises of God, that Joseph spoke 
thus confidently respecting the future exodus of the Israelites, and gave 
directions respecting his bones, which could be executed only in case 
this exodus took place. 

Ver. 23. Iiores Mwiioijc .... adrov, by faith Moses, after his birth, 
was concealed for three months by his parents. See Exod. ii. 2. 
What is attributed by our author to the parents of Moses, is there 
said to have been done by his mother. But doubtless it was with her 
husband’s knowledge and concurrence; and even if it were not, there 
are many cases in Scripture, where what is done by one of any class 
or company of men, is attributed generally to the class or company ; 
e. g. one evangelist says, that the thieves on the cross reviled Jesus ; 
but another informs us that one of them did this. That zarépa¢ applies 
to both father and mother is well known, it being equivalent to our 
word parents. 

Avért eldov . . . Baorewe, because they saw that he was a goodly 
child, and did not fear the khing’s commandment. ’Aoretov, Hebrew, 
340, goodly, fair, beautiful. Ataraypa rod Baoéwe, viz. the com- 
mand of Pharaoh to destroy all the male children, Exod. i. 16 22. 


494 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 24, 25, 26, 27. 


It was faith, or confidence in Divine protection, which led them to per- 
form such a hazardous duty. 

Ver. 24. Iicres Mwiioic . . . Papaw, by faith Moses, when arrived 
at mature age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 
Méyac yevouevoc means, become full grown, become adult, having 
attained the stature of a man. ’Hpyioaro, refused, §c.: no express 
act of this kind is related in the sacred history ; but the whole account 
of Moses’ conduct shows that he had, at this period, fully resolved upon 
leaving the court of Pharaoh, and embarking in the cause of the 
oppressed Israelites. 

Ver. 25. MaXov Edopevog . . . amtddavow, choosing rather to suf- 
fer uffliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of 
sin for a season. Aap rov Ocov, i. e. the Israelites, to whom this 
name is often given. IIpdcKxarpor adpapriag arddavovr, viz. the pleasures 
of living at the court of Pharaoh in princely magnificence. 

Ver. 26. MetZova zNovrov . . . Xptorov, counting reproach, like that 
which Christ suffered, as greater riches than all the treasures of 
Egypt. That évedropor rot Xprorod has the meaning here assigned to 
it, seems quite evident, if we consider, that the comparison between the 
reproach which Christ himself suffered, and the treasures of Egypt, 
would be inapposite here. The simple sentiment is, ‘‘ Moses renounced 
pleasure and wealth, and endured suffering and reproach, because he 
believed in the promises which God had made of future good, and that 
he would deliver his people from the bondage of Egypt. So Christ, 
‘though rich, for our sakes became poor,” in order to redeem us from 
a bondage worse than that of Egypt. That Moses, then, counted 
reproach like that which Christ suffered, as preferable to the plea- 
sure and wealth which he might have enjoyed at the Egyptian court, is 
plainly the meaning of the writer. Compare raSjpara Xprorov, suffer- 
ings like those of Christ, in 2 Cor.i. 5. Such a use of the genitive 
case is by no means unfrequent. 

"AmwéPrere yap cic tiv puoSarodociay, because he had respect to the 
retribution. ’Aré@Xere means, to look away from present things, and 
to have respect to, or look forward to, future ones. The retribution 
of the invisible world is doubtless meant, here, by puoSarodociay. 
Compare ver. 13—16, and ver. 27. By faith in the proffered happi- 
ness of a future state, Moses was led to the acts of self-denial here 
adverted to. 


Ver. 27. Iioree xarédurev ...... Paoréwe, by faith he left Egupt, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 28, 29. 405 


not fearing the indignation of the king. It has been disputed, whether 
it was the first or second time that Moses left Egypt, to which the writer 
here adverts. The first is related in Exod. ii., and was when he fled to 
Jethro in Midian. But as he fled, in this case, to save his life, which 
Pharaoh sought to destroy, Exod. ii. 14, 15, this cannot be the leaving 
Egypt to which the apostle refers; although Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Gicumenius, and some of the modern critics, have under- 
stood it to beso. It must be the occurrences related in Exod. x.—xiv., 
to which our author refers. Tov Supdv rot Baowéwe, see Exod. 
x. 28, 29. 

Toy yao adparoy we dpmy éxaprépynoe, for he persevered, as one who sees 
Him that is invisible. ’Exaprépnoe, perduravit, fortiter vel patienter 
duravit, if it relate to perseverance in a time of trial and suffering, as 
here. It does not of itself indicate endurance of suffering, but holding 
out, persevering, in any state or condition, keeping up good courage and 
fortitude perseveringly or constantly. ’Adparoy, i.e. Him whom “ no 
eye hath seen,”’ viz. the invisible God; an appellation frequently given 
to the Deity; e.g. 1 Tim. i. 17: compare Rom. i. 20. Col. i. 15, 16. 
In other words, a regard to that world which is seen only by the eye of 
faith, led Moses to quit Egypt in defiance of Pharaoh’s injunctions. 

Ver. 28. [lore rerwoinxe «4... atta, by faith he observed the pass- 
over, and the sprinkling of the blood, so that He who destroyed the first- 
born might not touch them. Tleroinxe 70 raoya, Hebrew aie}) Mwy, 
which the LXX, translate roety 70 waoya. This means, (as we say,) to 
keep or celebrate the passover. The Hebrew MDD comes from NDD, to 
puss over, to pass by. The Greek form zacya comes from the Ane ae 
Hebrew word, NMDB, which was the Jewish method of pronouncing 
i iez2) in later times, at to which the Greek word exactly corresponds. 
The account of the event to which the word maoxa relates, may be seen 
in Exod. ch. xii.; for the etymology, see ver. 11. 13. ‘O ddoSpetwy ra 
mpwrdroxka, see Exod. xii. 12. M) Siyn airéy, Exod. xii. 13; airéy, in 
the genitive, is governed by Siyy, as verbs of sense (touch) govern the 
genitive. 

All this was done by faith, i.e. because Moses fully believed that 
what God had foretold would come to pass; in other words, it was 
through confidence in the Divine declarations. 

Ver. 29. Lore: déBnoav 22.25 Enpiic, by faith they passed through 
the Red Sea,as ondry land The nominative to duéBnoar is ot lopanhira, 


456 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 30, 31. 


which the writer leaves his readers to supply from the tenor of the 
narration. Instances of the like kind are not unfrequent, both in the 
writings of the Old Testament and of the New. See the history of the 
event, in Exod. ch. xiv. 

"He meipayv ...-+- Karerddnoav, which the Egyptians assaying to do, 
were drowned. “He reipay afdvrec is an expression of peculiar con- 
struction. *He meipay means the attempt of which, viz. of passing 
through the Red Sea; so that ij¢ reipay Nafdyrec is equivalent to ie dud- 
Bacw repalorrec, attempting the passage of which. KareréSyoay from 
cararlvw, to swallow up, to engulf, to overwhelm, and hence, to drown. 
See Exod. xiv. 27, 28. 

It was on account of confidence in the promise of God to bring the 
Israelites safely through the Red Sea, that they ventured to cross an 
arm of it, looking to him for protection from its waters. It is not to be 
supposed that every individual of the Israelites possessed such a confi- 
dence as is here described; but their leaders had it, and (as in other 
cases of a similar nature) it is predicated of the nation. 

Ver. 30. [lore ra retyn o22s0 hpépac, by farth, the walls of Jericho 
fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days. See 
Josh. vi. 12—20. It was in consequence of the promise made by God 
to Joshua, that Jericho should be taken after the Israelites had marched 
around it for seven days in sucsession, that these circuits were performed. 
It was confidence, then, in the Divine word, which led to the event in 
question. KuxdwSéyra, Rosenmiiller, Schleusner, Dindorf, and others, 
understand to have respect to czrcumvallation, or a siege of the city by 
surrounding it; altogether contrary to the meaning of the narration in 
Josh. ch. vi. For what can be the meaning of Josh. vi. 15, on the sup- 
position that their interpretation is correct? Did the Israelites lay seven 
sieges to it in one day? Most evident is it, that the sacred writer con- 
siders the whole event of the taking of Jericho as miraculous; and all 
attempts to explain it away by supposing a regular circumvallation, and 
that the city was stormed by the troops of Joshua on the seventh day, 
are glosses forced upon the scripture by the sceptical philosophy of 
interpreters, not a simple explanation of the meaning of the sacred 
writers. 

Ver. 31. Tiare: ‘Paa....eiohyne, by faith, Rahab the harlot, having 
entertained the spies in a friendly manner, perished not with the 
unbelieving. Ov auvyatwdero, 1. e. was preserved, the affirmative idea 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 32, 33. 497 


being conveyed (as often elsewhere) by the use of a negative form of 
expression. ’AzecSijoace refers to the inhabitants of Canaan, who treated 
the claims of the Israelites to that country with contumacy, and dis- 
believed what Jehovah had said respecting them. ’AzecSijc is one who 
refuses to be persuadcd who is contumacious. The event to which this 
clause relates is narrated in Josh. vi. 22—25. 

Actapévn, having entertained, received, viz. into her house. Mer’ 
cipjvnc, with amity, in a peaceable manner ; like the Hebrew, DIU, 
friendship, e.g. Ps. xli. 10. Jer. xx. 10; ch. xxxvil. 22. Obad. 7. 
Ps. xxviii. 3; compare Esth. ix. 30. 

It has been doubted whether zépyy, the appellation given to Rahab, 
here and in James ii. 25, means harlot or hostess. For the latter, 
Schleusner contends, in his Lexicon; as do also many commentators. 
The corresponding Hebrew word is, 72t, which they say comes from Mt 
pascere, alere, so that mit may well be explained merely as one who 
furnishes others with nutriment, i.e. a hostess. But this derivation 
is contrary to the laws of etymology ; for mit must come from 713, to 
commit whoredom, and not from JM, to feed; so that the whole argu- 
ment, on which this interpretation is built, falls to the ground. Besides, 
the usus loguendi both of mi and xdpyn, is against such an inter- 
pretation. 

Ver. 32. Kai ri Eri Néyw; and what shall I say more ? or, why should 
I recount examples any longer ? 

"Exdsiper yap pe .... mpodnroy, for time would fail me, should I tell 
of Gideon, and Barak, and Sampson, and Jephtha, of David, and 
Samuel, and the prophets. The history of these, see in the books of 
Judges and Samuel. | 

Ver. 33. Ot Cia wiorewe «22. Baoreiac, who through faith subdued 
kingdoms. That is, confidence in Divine promises respecting the 
deliverance of Israel, led them to war with and subdue the kingdoms 
of those who oppressed the Hebrew nation. 

Eipyacayro Cuaosvyny, Hebrew PIs Wy or pT MyYD, practised 
justice, did that which was equitable and proper, carried the laws of 
justice into execution, which latter seems to be the idea here. 

’Exéruyov éxayyeXiwy, obtained promised blessings, i. e. as the reward 
of their confidence in God. ’Exayyedia means here, as generally in 
this epistle, quod promissum est; and refers to the various successes 
which, at different times, attended the obedient efforts and deeds of 
kings and prophets. 


498 COMMENTARY ON HEB. xi. 34, 35: 


"Eppacav oropara eovrwy, which proba ly refers to the history of 
Samson, Judg. xiv. 5—9; of David, 1 Sam. xvii. 34—36; and 
of Daniel, Dan. vi. 16—24. 

Ver. 34, "EoPecay dvvapyw tupoc, they quenched the violence of fire. 
See in Dan. ii. 19—26. 

"Egvyov ordpara poaxaipac, they escaped the edge of the sword. 
Zropara paxaipac, Hebrew AWD, The expression is frequent in 
Hebrew, and the equivalent one, “oropa playatoac, is several times used 
in the New Testament. The phrase is of a general nature, and is 
therefore applicable to many cases in the Old Testament, where escape 
from imminent danger is related. 

"Evecuvaposnoav aro aoSeveiac, were restored to vigour from a state 
of infirmity. ’AoSéveca refers to the infirmity occasioned by sickness, or 
disease ; not to the weakness of one army compared with another, or of 
one man compared with another. The case of Samson, then, in Judg. 
xv. 15, 19; ch. xvi. 19, seq. to which Dr. Schulz refers us, seems not 
to be such as the writer had in view; but rather such cases as that of 
Hezekiah, 2 Kings xx. 

"EyernSnoay ioxupol év rodtuw, became mighty in war. Cases of this 
nature, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles 
supply in abundance. 

TlapepSordac exhvay &ddorpiwy, overthrew the armies of foreigners. 
Many cases of this nature are presented in the same books. Tapeuodae 
means, camps, encampments; hence, the persons who live in them, i e. 
armies. ’A)Qorpiwy, 03, DY, i.e. strangers to the Hebrews, and to the 
worship of the true God; hence,.foreegners, heathen. 

Ver. 35. "EXaBov .... vexgove a’raéy, women recovered their dead, by 
a resurrection. -’"EE dvaordcewe designates restoration to life from a 
state of death, a renewed subsistence or existence, a resurrection; which 
corresponds with facts, as related in Scripture; e. g. 2 Kings iv. 18—37. 
1 Kings xvii. 17—24. Tove vexpove avroy, viz. their dead children; 
which is implied by airév. 

"ANNor dé érupraviaSnour, some were tortured and beaten. Tuprarigw, 
to tympanize, means to stretch upon an instrument calied ripzravor, (the 
shape of which is not certainly known at present,) for the sake of giving 
the body an attitude of peculiar exposure to the power of cudgels or 
rods. It involves the idea of scourging or beating in this peculiar way ; 
i.e. torture by stretching upon the rvuravoy and beating, were con- 


joined at the same time. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 36, 37. 499 


Od rpocdetaperon . . . TUXWoW, not accepting liberation, in order that 
they might obtain a better resurrection. That is, they declined accept- 
ing liberation from their torments on condition of renouncing their reli- 
gion. They looked to a resurrection of the body, which was of a higher 
nature than merely the redeeming it for a while from temporal death ; 
and in view of this, they refused to accept of liberation from their tor- 
ments on the condition prescribed. They persevered, because their faith 
enabled them to regard as a certainty the future and glorious resur- 
rection of the just. 

Kpeirrovoc avacracewe, better resurrection. Better than what? Plainly, 
better than that which had just been mentioned, viz. resurrection to life 
in the present world merely; as in the examples of the children men- 
tioned in 1 Kings xvii. and 2 Kings iv. It was not the hope of such a 
resurrection—the hope of merely regaining the present life, and being 
again subject to death as before—which led the martyrs suffering upon 
the ripavor, to refuse liberation. It was the hope of resurrection to a 
life of immortal happiness and glory, that led them to refuse liberation. 

Ver. 36. "Erepor d€ . . . EXafov, others were tried by mockings and 
scourges ; literally, others were put to the trial of mockings and scourges. 
’Euracypor refers to scorn, derision, and buffeting, which the victims of 
persecution experienced. Maoriywy designates a method of scourging 
differing from that practised by the use of the riyravov. See 2 Macc. 
vil. 1. 2 Kings, ii. 23. 1 Kings, xxii. 24. 

"Ere d& dsopov cat $udakijc, and also by bonds and imprisonment. See 
i Kings; xxi, 27. Jer. xx. 

Ver. 37. "EdtSaoSnoar... awéSavoy, they were stoned, they were sawn 
asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the murderous sword. 
The instances mentioned in this verse, of suffering and death, are not dis- 
tinctly recorded in the Old Testament; but were doubtless all of them 
realities, and often repeated under the terrible persecution of Antiochus 
Ephiphanes, and perhaps of Manasseh and others. The Jews have had 
a tradition, from time immemorial, that Isaiah was sawn asunder by the 
command of Manasseh. 

The word érepaa Snowy has been a stumbling-block to the great body 
of critics, both in ancient and modern times. The difficulty lies in the 
fact, that a word of a mere generic signification, and of a milder aspect, 
should be inserted in the midst of those which designate specific suffer- 
ings, and those of a high degree. Accordingly, it has been proposed to 
read, érupacSnoay, exnpwSnoay, éxphoSyoay, éxapSyoar, erupwinoay, 


ra 2 


500 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 38. 


expadynoay, éorepaadyoar, éopaiploSnoay, exnpedocnoay, Eraprxebsnoas', 
or érepaSnoay ; all of which are without any authority, while ézepao- 
Snoay is well supported. In such a case, conjecture, moreover, is out 
of the question, so long as the established reading will make any tole- 
rable sense. In respect to the contested word, éxeipaoOnoar, it seems to 
me that the great body of critics have overlooked a very obvious and 
intensive meaning of it, viz. that of temptation to do evil ; which, in the 
case presented by ver. 37, here, must mean ‘‘ temptations presented by 
persecutors to the victims of their torture, in order to induce them to 
forsake their religion, and worship the gods of idolaters.” Such was a 
common practice among the heathen persecutors of Christians. Not 
only life, but wealth and honour were frequently proffered, in the midst 
of torture most agonizing to the human frame, in order to tempt the 
martyrs to forsake their religion. Such a temptation as this, is by no 
means to be reckoned, under such circumstances, among the lighter 
trials of good men; and to such an one, it is plain, our text may refer. 
Is it not probable that it has such a reference ? Compare the latter part 
of ver. 35. If so, this locus vexatesstmus may be permitted to rest in 
quiet, not only as being supported by good authority, but as altogether 
significant, and entirely consonant with the writer’s purpose. 

TleptmOov év «2.256 Kakovxovpevor, they went about in sheep-skins 
and goat-skins, suffering want, afflicted, injuriously treated. That is, 
driven out from the society of men, they were obliged to clothe them- 
selves with the skins of animals ; to undergo all the wants and distresses 
to which such a condition reduced them; and to submit to the injuries 
which were heaped upon them by their persecutors. 

Ver. 38. “Qy obk Fy détoe 6 kdapoc, of whom the world was not worthy, 
i. e. with whom the world could not bear a comparison in respect to 
worth; in other words, “‘ who were of a character elevated far above 
that of the rest of the world.” This is a proverbial expression, and 
plainly is to be included here in a parenthesis, as it is an ejaculation of 
the writer, interrupting the regular series of the discourse. 

"Ev epnpiiatc «e+e yiic, wandering around in deserts and mountains, 
wn caves also, and dens of the earth. A further description of persons 
banished from society, and wandering hither and thither, in order to find 
the means of subsistence, or to avoid the rage of persecution. Zrndatore 
and draic include fissures of the rocks, and holes in the earth ; both of 
which were resorted to by these outcasts, for a shelter, when one was 
needed. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 39, 40. 50° 


Ver. 39. Kat ovroe rdyrec. sss érayyenrtay, all these, moreover, who 
are commended on account of fatth, obtained not the promised blessing. 
That is, they lived in expectation of some future good, of some promised 
blessing. They habitually, by faith, looked forward to something which 
they did not attain in the present life. MaprupnSévrtec, commended ; 
as often before, in this epistle. 

Ver. 40. Tov Geot repl......7edewSdo1, God having provided some 
better thing for us, so that without us they could not fully obtain what 
was needed. An exceedingly difficult verse, about the meaning of 
which there have been a multitude of conjectures. The only ones that 
deserve particular regard are, that the kpeirroy re refers to the Messiah ; 
or, that it refers to the happiness of the heavenly world. In the latter 
sense, some very respectable interpreters take it. But how is heavenly 
blessedness vouchsafed to later, more than to ancient saints? And in 
what sense can it be affirmed that the ancients could not, or did not, 
attain it without us? The object of the writer, through the chapter, has 
been to show, that the hopes of heaven, cherished by the ancient worthies, 
were firm and bright, through faith in the word of God. That they did, 
at last, actually attain the object of their hopes, surely will not be 
doubted. The ‘‘ better thing reserved for Christians,” then, is not a 
reward in heaven; for such a reward was profiered also to the ancient 
saints. 

I must, therefore, adopt another exegesis of the whole passage ; which 
refers érayyehiay to the promised blessing of the Messiah. See Gen. xii. 
1—3; ch. xvii. 1—8. I construe the whole passage, then, in this 
manner. ‘‘ The ancient worthies persevered in their faith, although the 
Messiah was known to them only by promise. We are under greater 
obligations than they to persevere; for God has fulfilled his promise 
respecting the Messiah, and thus placed us in a condition better adapted 
to perseverance than theirs. So much is our condition preferable to 
theirs, that we may even say, Without the blessing which we enjoy, their 
happiness could not be completed.” In other words, The coming of the 
Messiah was essential to the consummation of their happiness in glory, 
i. e. was necessary to their 7eXetwore, 

In ch. ix. 15, (compare ch. ix. 26, and Rom. iii. 25, 26,) the death 
of Christ is represented as having a retrospective influence upon past 
ages. The happiness, then, of the ancient worthies, is connected with 
Christ’s coming and atonement. And to these, the writer seems to me 
to advert, when he says, po) xwpic Hudy redewSoGor, i.e. without what 


502 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. I. 


has taken place in our days, their happiness could not be perfected, 
great and good as they were. If this be not his meaning, I am unable to 

discover it. And this meaning is altogether apposite to his purpose ; | 
for, as he had shown that faith was the means, to the ancient worthies, 
of perseverance, and of obtaining future happiness, even before the 
coming of the Messiah, he might well argue, that sexce his coming, there 
were more powerful motives to persevere in the faith which he had been 
commending. If the ancients did so, whose happiness was connected 
with something then future, and which was to happen only in later days, 
then surely Christians ought now to persevere, who have actually wit- 
nessed the performance of promised good, for which the ancients only 
hoped. The xpeirrov 7, then, seems toe be, “the actual fulfilment of 


, 


the promise respecting the Messiah ;” in respect to which, later times 
certainly have a pre-eminence over the early ones; and on which, the 


expected happiness of early times was really dependent. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 1. Tovyapoty cal .... prapripwy, since now we are encompassed 
by so great a multitude of witnesses ; 1.e. by so great a multitude of 
spectators. An allusion, as the sequel shows, is here made to the 
stadium of the Greeks and Romans, where the persons stood who were 
to engage in the exercises of their public games, surrounded by great 
multitudes of spectators. In a condition resembling this, the writer 
now places the Hebrew Christians whom he is addressing, and sur- 
rounds them with the multitude of worthies and martyrs, to whom he 
had been alluding in the preceding chapters. Négoe is figuratively used 
for multitude. So the heathen writers also; e. g. Herod. VIII. 109, 
végoc mooovro avOpwrwy. Eurip. Pheniss. 1321, védoc Totepiwy. Hee. 
907, rowvde ‘EXXjvwy végoc, where the Scholiast explains végoc by 
mrijsoc.  Aristoph. Avib. orpovSidy vépoc. Hom. Il. y. 133, védog 
regov. Diod. Sic. III. 28, vegérn [i. Gq. vépoc] axpidwr. 

The writer proceeds to exhort the combatants to prepare for- the 
contest before them. “Oyxoy doSéuevor mavra, laying aside every 
incumbrance. "“Oyxoc means swelling, tumour, pride; also, werght, 
weightiness. The reference here is to those who ran in stadium, and 


who laid aside all superfluous clothing, and disencumbered themselves 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xi. I. , 503 


of every thing which could impede their progress. The simple word, 
weight, would not be of sufficient latitude to convey all which éy«oc 
means, in the passage beforeus. Every zmpediment or hinderance is to 
be laid aside, or, every incumbrance is to be avoided. 

Kat ryv evrepioraroy apapriay, espectally the sin which easily besets 
us. Kati I understand, here, as a particle of connexion before the 
Tiv evrepioraroy duapriay, and that it signifies even, truly, and is ade- 
quate, in such a connexion, to the English word specially, or in par- 
ficular. Evrepioraroy is a drat Xeyopevoy, the meaning of which has 
been variously explained. It is, in its composition, analogical with 
evTEplypadoc, evrepizaroc, evmepixutoc, &c. Tlepriornue means, to stand 
round, surround. Hence Chrysostom explains evrepicraroy by } evkodwe 
Tepttarauevyn iyudc, Which easely comes, or stands around us. So many 
modern interpreters understand the word; which, on the whole, seems 
to me most apposite. The auapria which most easily beset the He- 
brews, was undoubtedly apostasy, or defection from their Christian 
profession ; against which the whole epistle is directed. They were 
under peculiar temptations to this sin, in consequence of the perse- 
cutions which they endured, and their former prejudices in favour of 
Judaism. 

But other critics, ancient and modern, explain ecvrepioraroy in a 
somewhat different manner. Ilepioraove, among other things, denotes, 
as Hesychius affirms, Site, avayen, pépipva. Hence Theodoret 
explains evrepicraroy, by oi ijy ebxkddwe Tie Eig Teptordoete éwwinrer, by 
which any one easily falls into troubles or afflictions. That is, ‘* Lay 
aside the sin which will easily bring you into a state of punishment or 
distress.” So some of the modern critics, also, explain the word; 
especially as the Greek azepioraroy means, not dangerous, free from 
vexation. Hence, they conclude, evrepisraroy must mean the opposite 
of this, viz. full of danger or trouble; ev being intensive, as in cipe- 
yéSne, evpyxne, &c. This is a very good sense, and well supported by 
analogy. It may therefore be safely admitted. 

Others, Ernesti, Doederlin, et. al. prefer to render evrepicraroe by 
yuod patronos habet quod homines favent ; 1. e. evrepioraroy is, with 
them, well surrounded, viz, by applauding multitudes. But the pre- 
ceding sense is better supported than this, by analogy. 

Ac bropévijg «+++ ayova, let us run with perseverance the race set 
before us. ‘Yzropévijc refers here, not so much to enduring patiently 


504 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 2. 


evils which might befall them, as to holding owt in the race, persevering 
in their efforts until it was completed, and the reward secured. ’Aywy 
means, any kind of contest, any gymnastic exercise which was a trial 
of skill, or in which there was a competition. Here, plainly, it is 
limited to designate a race, by the accompanying rpéxwpev. Tpdxerpar is 
employed, by the classical writers, in the same way as here, viz. to de- 
signate the proposal of this or that ayy to the dywricra. 

The simple meaning of the whole verse, divested of metaphor, is, 
** Since so many illustrious patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs, who 
preceded us, have exercised faith, persevered in it, and obtained the 
rewards consequent upon it, let us, in like manner, rejecting every 
solicitation to renounce our hopes and our holy religion, persevere in the 
belief, and in the duties, which the gospel requires.” 

Ver. 2. That they may be excited to do this, he now refers them to 
the example of Christ himself. "Agopévrec cic Tov... ... Inaodr, looking 
to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. "Apyxtyorv, author, 
leader; here it means, ‘‘ Jesus, who introduced the new religion, or the 
Christian faith, who first taught it, who led the way in it. See on 
ch. ii. 10. TedXewriy, he who completed the system of faith or reli- 
gion, which he had introduced. So it is commonly explained. It 
may be asked, however, whether the meaning of reXewr7}jv be not sub- 
stantially the same with redeweic, ch. v.93; reXec@oa, ch. ul. 10; rere- 
Aecwpévov, ch. vil. 28; compare ver. 26 of the same. If construed 
according to this analogy, the meaning of the phrase would be, “ Let us 
look, for an example, to Jesus, the author of our religion, now advanced 
to a state of glory.” There is an objection, however, to this, arising 
from the clause in the last part of the verse, which seems to present 
the same idea. It is hardly probable that the writer has fallen into 
tautology. 

That riorce often signifies the Christian faith or religion, hardly needs 
to be mentioned. 

“Oc dvi rie»... xapac, who, on account of the joy that was set before 
him. This yapa xpoxeysévn, was exaltation to the right hand of God in 
the world above, and the glorious reign which was to follow, as the last 
part of the verse shows. Thé joy that was set before him, was given to 
him when he had finished his course. 

‘Yrepenve OTAUPOY eeoaee kexaSnxe, endured the cross, disregarding 
ignominy, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xIl. 3, 4. §05 


"Ey debt re, x. 7. X., See on ch. i. 3. Aioyuyy means, the shame which 
others might heap upon him, 1. e. ignominy, disgrace, or the ignominious 
punishment of the cross. 

Sentiment: ‘ Do as Christ, the author of our holy religion, did. For 
the heavenly reward proposed, he, with patience and perseverance, 
endured every kind of indignity and suffering, and has, in consequence 
of it, received a glorious reward. Follow in his steps, and participate 
in his glory.” 

Ver. 3. ’AvadoyioacSe ..... auridoyiay, consider, now, him who 
endured such opposition against himself from sinners. ’AvadoyicacSe 
means, reflect on his example, take his case into consideration. ‘Apap- 
twd@v refers here to the persecuting Jews of the Saviour’s time, who 
thus evil entreated Jesus. “Avridoyiay, 2”; nap, opposition, rebel- 
lion, contest against, contumely. Contradiction is a term too soft to 
reach the full meaning. 

"Iva poy Kapyre.... éxdvdpevor, lest, becoming discouraged in your 
minds, ye grow weary. ’Ex\vopae means, to become discouraged or 
despondent. 1 join the participle ékAvépevoe with raic Wuyaic. So 
Wahl, on ékAvéjpar. The verb ékdvw has the same signification, if the 
noun be omitted; e. g. ver. 5. 

Kapyw means, to become wearied, to be tired out. The first step 
toward forsaking the Christian course, is to become disheartened 
in the pursuit of it. Next follows weariness in pursuing that, from 
which we do not hope or expect any certain good. This leads, of 
course, to an abandonment of the pursuit. 

Ver. 4. Ovrw péxpee . . . avrayorilopuevor, ye have not yet resisted 
unto blood, in your contest against sin. The phrase, ye have not 
resisted unto blood, is not to be understood as representing the Hebrew 
Christians as making, or preparing to make, active and hostile resist- 
ance to their aggressors or persecutors. This is not the meaning of the 
writer. It was figuratively a contest, in which the Hebrews were 
engaged ; just as in ver. 1—3, he had represented it as a race, aywr. 
It was a contest with trial, temptation, affliction; the result of being 
persecuted by the enemies of the Christian religion. But the struggle 
had not yet proceeded so far, that they were called to martyrdom, as 
others in ancient times had been. Many vexations had been suffered 
by them ; but the shedding of their blood had not yet commenced. 

This could hardly be said in respect to the churches at Jerusalem, 
without limitation, where James and Stephen had actually suffered mar- 


506 COMMENTARY ON HES. XII. 5, 6. 


tyrdom, and others had been severely treated. Still, it might be said 
of the generation of Christians then living there. 

IIpo¢ rv duapriay, a controverted phrase. I understand it (simply 
in accordance with the nature of the context) as an abstract noun put 
for a concrete, i. e. dapria for 4uaprwdove ; an usus loquendi very com- 
mon in both the Old and New Testaments. ‘Apapriay, if explained thus, 
means, persecutors, v.z. those who inflicted injuries upon the Hebrew 
Christians ; and probably these were their own countrymen or nation, 
i. e. the Jews. 

Ver. 5. Kai ékdéA\node. . . duadéyerut, and have ye forgotten the 
exhortation which is addressed to you as to children? Most interpre- 
ters render «cai éckAéAnoSe, without interrogation, and ye have forgotten, 
ye must needs have forgotten, &c. It seems to me more congruous 
with the apostle’s manner of address, in this hortatory part of his 
epistle, to render it, (as Ernesti has done,) interrogatively. It loses 
nothing of its force, and gains in respect to the manner of address. 

Yie pou . . . eeyxdpevoc, my son, do not slight the chastening of 
the Lord, nor be disheartened when reproved by him. ’Ohvywpe, Hebrew 
DNIIM), contemn, slight, despise, disregard. Wavetac, n the sense of 
the Hebrew, DVD, chastening, rebuke. Classic usage employs matdeta 
in the sense of instruction, discipline. ’Exhvov, Hebrew PPh), from ¥)P, 
fastidire, also metuere, i. e. pu éxdvov, be not timid, be not disheart- 
ened, viz. as to going forward in your Christian course; forsake it not 
because you experienced trouble in pursuing it. The quotation is from 
Prov. iii. 11, 12, and in the words of the Septuagint. 

Ver. 6. “Ov yap dyarG . . . xpocdéyerar, for whom the Lord loveth, 
he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Maoryoi 
dé, x. 7. A. is after the words of the Septuagint, Prov. iii. 12. The 
Hebrew, as now read, gives a somewhat different meaning. It is thus: 
MV JAN AND, and as a father [chastens] the son whom he 
loves. The LXX. appear to have read IND), participle of AND, or 
else AND, in Piel. But no example of a transitive sense of AN, in 
Kal, is to be found; it means only, to be afflicted, to feel pain. Of 
the Piel form of this verb, no instance is found in the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures. Still the LXX. may have read AND), and pain, viz. MP, 
shall overtake the son, &c. which gives the same sense (for substance) 
as paorvyoi viv. In whatever way they read the Hebrew, in order to 
make their version as the version now is, and as the apostle has quoted, 
it preserves the spirit, though not the letter, of the original Hebrew. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 7, 8, 9. 507 


That quotations are often made by the New Testament writers from the 
“Old Testament, in a general way, ad sensum, and not ad literam, I 
have had frequent occasion to remark before, in commenting on our 
epistle. No one who attentively studies the New Testament can doubt 
this. 

Ver. 7. Ei wacceiay .... 6O80c, *f ye endure chastisement, God 
dealeth with you as children.  ‘Yxopévere has the sense here of 
enduring, undergoing, suffering ; and not that of supporting, bearing 
up under, persevering. Ipocpéperae (mid. voice) means tructare ali- 
quem. So the classical writers also employ it. See Schneider and 
Schleusner on the word. 

Tic yap tor .... mwarip; for what son is there, whom his father 
does not chasten? That is, how can ye expect, although ye are children, 
not to receive any chastisement ? 

Ver. 8. Ei dé ywole gore .... viol, but if ye are without chastisement, 
(of which all children are made partukers,) then are ye spurious and 
not [legitimate] chzldren. Noo. means, cllegztemate children, Yuwi 
which is here the antithesis, of course means legitimate offspring. 
The meaning is, “‘ If ye are not dealt with as all legitimate children are, 
it would follow, that ye are considered as not belonging to them.” 
‘That is, if ye receive no chastening, then God does not acknowledge you 
as his spiritual children. 

The design of the writer, in thus applying this text of scripture, is 
plain. He means to tell the Hebrews, that so far from being dis- 
heartened by their trials and afflictions, on account of their Christian 
profession, they ought to regard it as matter of encouragement, and 
as an evidence that God is acknowledging, by these, their filial relation 
to him. 

Ver. 9. Elfra rove piv .. . éverpetopeSa, furthermore, we have had 
fathers of our flesh, who have chastised us, and we have yielded them 
reverence. Tij¢ cupkoc toy rwarépac fathers of our flesh, i. e. cf our 
natural bodies. The idea is, ‘ the fathers of our physical nature, in 
distinction from our spiritual one.” 

Ov wodd@ pGdAov . . . Sioopev; shall we not much rather yreld 
subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, that we may live? That is, 
when God chastens us for our good, in order that he may promote our 
final happiness, when he has so important an end in view; shall we 
not bow to his will, with cheerful subjection? Tarpit rév wrevpdrwr, 
an antithesis of rij¢ capxoc Hypa warépac, and therefore, plainly, jar is 


508 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 10, 11, 12. 


implied after xvevpdrwv. Numb. xvi. 22, wa 922 nim TN, 
the God of the spirits of all flesh, isa parallel expression. Zivdien 
has the sense here, as often elsewhere, of being happy; like the Latin 
vivere, in dum vivimus vivamus. 

Ver. 10. Oi pev yap . . . émaicevoy, they, indeed, chastened us for a 
little while, according to their own pleasure. Ilpd¢ édiyac ipépac, 
i.e, during our childhood, our minority; which seems to me a much 
more natural sense than to say, with Heinrichs and Dindorf, “ the fruit 
of their chastisement was only temporary.” Kara 70 doxovy adroic, 
according to their own pleasure, intimates that they sometimes erred in 
their chastisement, or that it was sometimes arbitrary; but it is not 
so with that which God inflicts. 

‘O b€ éxl ro cupdépoy . . . abrov, but he for our good, in order that 
we might be made partakers of his holiness. That is, God never chas- 
tises arbitrarily, but always to promote the real good of his children, 
to make them more holy, and so more like himself. Compare 2 Pet. 
red Leva xiv 44 spxixa 2 xx.) 76) 

Ver. 11. Ildoa 0€ raweia . . . . AUTHc, now all chastisement, for 
the present, seemeth not io be matter of joy, but of grief. Tlpdg¢ 
piv ro mapoy, during the present, i. e. while it continues. Mey 
here corresponds to dé after vorepoy in the next clause, i. e. there is pro- 
tasis and apodosis. 

"Yorepov c&.... Cixacocbync, but afterwards it yields the happy fruit 
of righteousness, to those who are exercised thereby. Kaproy eipnyixoy 
is a peculiar expression. Some resemblance to it may be found in 
James iil. 18. Isa. xxxii. 17. Gen. xxxvil. 4. The meaning of eipnyixdy 
is to be gathered, by a comparison of it with the Hebrew Div, which 
means, good, happiness, welfare. Eipnyixog, then, is thit which bestows 
happiness, or produces zt. This corresponds with the writer’s design ; 
who means to say, that afflictions, rightly improved, will be productive 
of fruit that will confer happiness, such fruit as righteousness always 
produces. So remote a position of Cucacoovyne from xaproy, seems almost 
to indicate the necessity of repeating this word before it. 

Ver. 12. Aw rac mapepévac ....avopswoare, wherefore strengthen 
the weak hands, and the feeble knees. ’AvopSwoure is often employed 
by the LXX. in order to translate the Hebrew })3, which means to 
establish, to make firm, to strengthen. Tapepévag (from rapénpc) means 
relaxed, let down, consequently, weak, enfeebled. One might (as many 
interpreters have done) translate avopSwcare rapemevac xsipac, by lift 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 13, !4. 509 


up the hands that hang down. But since the same verb applies to 
mapadedupeva yovara, it is better so to render it, as to make the appli- 
cation to both congruous; which may be done without transgressing: 
Hellenistic usage. The quotation is from Isa. xxxv. 3, where the 
Septuagint has icyvoare instead of avopSwaare. 

The meaning of the verse is, ‘‘ Since all your afflictions are dispensed 
by fatherly kindness, be of good courage, do not indulge any despond- 
ency, but persevere in the course which you have begun.” 

Ver. 13. Kai rpoxuitc dpSic .... tay, and make plain the paths for 
your feet. In Hebrew, 7 2299 DoD make even or level the path of 
thy feet; Septuagint, dpSac rpoxede moter cote root, Prov. il. 26. If the 
apostle has quoted here, it is ad sensum, not ad verbum. The meaning 
is, ‘‘ Remove all obtacles, or disregard all obstacles, to your progress in 
the Christian course.” 

“Iva pup rd xwdOv.... paddov, that what is lame may not be sprained, 
but rather be healed. Tod ywddov is a neuter adjective, used for the 
abstract noun, lameness, and therefore of a generic signification, desig- 
nating that which zs lame, or the members which are lamed. ?Exrpari 
means, to turn aside : which, applied to the lame, is to dislocate, distort, 
sprain, wrench, the limbs which are lamed. 

"laSy dé wadXor, i.e. it is better to make the paths smooth and plain, 
so that those who are lamed may walk with ease and safety, than to 
let them be rough and uneven, so as to endanger an increase of their 
malady. 

The whole is a figurative expression, used by our author to convey 
the idea, that to go straight forward in their Christian course, regardless 
of any afflictions to which this may subject them, is the only way of 
safety for those who are in danger of halting. 





The writer now leaves the subject, on which he had insisted so long and with such 
earnestness, and proceeds to remind the Hebrews of various duties to which their 
Christian profession, and the times in which they lived, rendered it necessary that they 
should pay a particular regard. 


Ver. 14. Eiptyny were .... dyvaopor, studiously cultivate peace 
with all men, and holiness. Eiphyny means here, a state of concord and 
amity, the opposite of contention and broils. To contentions the Hebrew 
Christians must have been much exposed at this time, in consequence of 


SO COMMENTARY ON HEB. xIl. 135. 


the frequent injuries inflicted upon them by their persecutors. Acoxere, 
pursue with zeal or engagedness. ‘Ay.acpor, holiness, i.e. a pious 
upright life, or a life of consecration to God. 

Ov xwpic. . . . Kipuov, without which no one shall see the Lord. 
"OrreoSa rov Kupwy, to see the Lord, denotes, to come before him, to 
enjoy his presence, to be admitted to his favour. Compare Matt. v. 8, 
and Wahl on ézroua, 2b. See also 1 Thess. iv. 17. 2 Cor. v. 8. 
Phil. 1. 23. John xiv. 3,4; xvii. 24. 

Ver. 15. ’Emtoxorovrrec pu) tic .... Oeov, see to it, that no one fail of 
the favour of God. ’Emtocxorotrrec, literally, seeing ; but the sense is 
the same, and the translation more perspicuous, if a new sentence be 
made here, by adopting, as I have done, the imperative form of the verb 
to see. My) rc, 1. e. po) ree 4, the verb of existence being implied. 
‘Yorepéy is differently rendered by different interprefers. ‘Yorepéw 
means to come late, to arrive after the proper or favourable time, and 
is so rendered here by some. But torepéy awd... is hardly capable of 
such a meaning, and plainly should be rendered, be wanting in respect 
to, fail of, come short of, lack. But what is yapirog? Some answer, 
the Christian religion ; and construe the whole phrase thus, “ Guard 
well against the apostacy of any one from Christianity.” But this 
warning has been so often repeated, and in terms so awful; and spe- 
cially, as the writer appears, in ver. 14, to make a transition from his 
great subject, to the consideration of other things of particular import- 
ance to the Hebrew Christians ; it may well be doubted, whether yapuroc 
has the sense thus put upon it. The writer had just said, that ‘ holi- 
ness was indispensable to that happiness which God bestows.” I under- 
stand him as now saying, ‘‘ See well to it, that no one fail of obtaining 


’ 


that Divine favour which is the result of holiness ;” and so connect it, 
as a hortatory adjunct, with the preceding sentiment. 

My rec piga .... évoxdy, lest any root of bitterness springing up 
trouble you; i. e. see to it, lest any person of vicious life and example 
should rise up among you. Many commentators refer this to apostates. 
They are the more inclined to this, because a similar expression is 
found in Deut. xxix. 17, which there characterises those who turn from 
the worship of the true God to that of idols. But, as it is far from being 
certain that our author designs to make a direct quotation in the present 
case, I should not consider this reason, as in itself of any considerable 
weight. Even if the form of expression be quoted, the application of 
it must depend, of course, upon the context. This respects not apostacy 


— so 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xil. I6. 511 


m particular, (as we have already seen,) but other sins to which the 
Hebrews might be particularly exposed. No doubt, the expression 
pia TUK LC comes from the Hebrew, 72) WN m5 wri O22 w P, 
lest there be among you any root springing up, [which is] poison and 
wormwood, Deut. xxix. 18. The expression there used to describe 
an idolater, viz. root of porson and wormwood, is here applied to any 
person of an unholy life and deleterious example, who is called 
pica muKplac. 

The consequence is next described. Kat dc ravrne praySioe roAXot, 
and by this many be polluted. That is, the bad example of some will 
have a pernicious, polluting influence on many. Guard well against it; 
for éxtoxorovyrec is implied before pu) ree piZa, kK. 7. X. 

Ver. 16. M)) rie répvoc ....aurov, let there be no fornicator nor 
profane person, like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth- 
right. dpvog is explained as meaning apostate, one making defection 
from the true religion to a false one, by those who construe the whole 
of our context as relating only to apostacy. God often taxes his ancient 
people with adultery and fornication, in consequence of their having 
turned to the worship of idols. The meaning thus given to zdépvoc may, 
no doubt, be philologically supported ; i. e. the word is capable of such 
an explanation. But, as I interpret the context in a different way, it 
appears to be more consonant with it, to take répvoe as designating any 
person who indulges in gross and sensual pleasures, or, who is of 
an abandoned character. So our Saviour often speaks of the Jews as 
a wicked and adulterous generation ; not literally adulterous, (although 
doubtless this was true of some,) but adulterous in the figurative sense 
of the word, viz. sensual, victous, abandoned, profligate. 

Béfmdo¢g is one who scoffs at religion or sacred things, who dis- 
regards what is sacred in the view of Heaven. The appellations 
mépvoc and /3¢3ndo¢g may both be applied to Esau here, and probably are 
so. As to the application of répvoc, see Gen. xxvi. 34, 35; and Gen. 
xxxvi. 2. In regard to BéBndoc, see Gen. xxv. 29—34, His birthright 
was not, indeed, a thing of religion; but it was, in those days, a matter 
of great personal importance and advantage. The argument is from 
analogy: ‘* Let no one give up himself to the gratifications of his lusts, 
as did Esau, to the great grief of his father, Gen. xxvi. 35; let no one 
despise the distinguished privileges which Christianity confers upon him, 
like Esau, who despised the privileges of his birthright, and parted with 
them for a mere morsel of food.” In the case of Esau, folly and 


~ 


512 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XH. 17, 18. 


unbelief were very conspicuous; for the land of Canaan, as he well 
knew, had been promised to his ancestors for a possession ; and, as the 
first-born son, he must, according to the custom of those days, have a 
peculiar title to it. So, those who reject the proffer of the heavenly 
inheritance, and renounce their duty as Christians, may, with more 
propriety still, be called HeAnrou. 

Ver. 17. Those, who conduct themselves in such a manner, will here- 
after weep with bitter lamentations, when it is beyond their power to 
recover what has been lost. Thus was it with Esau. “lore yap ....-- 
arecoxyuaodn, for ye know, that when he was afterwards desirous to 
obtain the blessing, it was refused. See Gen. xxvil. 34—40. E’do- 
yiay, viz. the blessing of his father Isaac. 

Meravoiac yup .... airiy, yea, he found no place for a change of 
mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. See Gen. 
xxvii. 35, 38, 40. Meravoiac here refers to a change of mind in Isaac, 
who had given the blessing (appropriate to primogeniture) to Jacob. 
The writer evidently does not mean to say, that Esau found no place for 
repentance in himself. Adrjy, sc. peravoray. 

The sentiment of the whole is, ‘‘ Guard well against indulging any 
fleshly appetites; above all, against slighting the blessings and privileges 
which Christianity proffers; lest, having done this, you come at last, 
when it is for ever too late, bitterly to mourn over your folly and wicked- 
ness.” 


Such watchfulness the Hebrews had the more reason to observe, since under the 
new dispensation every thing was of a milder aspect, and of a more inviting, 
encouraging nature, than under the old. The comparison between the two dispensa- 
tions is continued through ver. 18—24. The writer begins with describing the 
nature of the ancient one. The whole passage has respect to Exod. ch. xx. and xxi. 
&c, ; and Deut. eh. iv. and v. 


Ver. 18. Ov yo mpocedndvSare ...- Oper, moreover, ye are not come 
to the mount which could be touched. He means mount Sinai, which 
was an object palpable to the senses. WyAagwpévy, contrectabile, quod 
tangendum sit, 1.q. atoSnrov, quicquid sensu percipitur. So Tacitus, 
Ann. III. 12, oculis contrectare ; and Cicero, Tusc. III. 15, mente con- 
trectare. The idea of de celo tactus, thunder-struck, is here assigned 
by some respectable expositors to Yyagwpyévy; but without any good 
philological support. The Greeks use Siyew and Suvyyavew, to denote 


COMMEN'TARY ON HEB. xIt. 19. Silla 


tie striking of thunder. The Hebrews employ aj, which the LXX. 
transl se by azreaSar. But WyAagddw answers to the Hebrew wus and 
wy. Particularly in Talmudic and Rabbinic Hebrew, is nwwa and 
WDD used to designate, quod contrectabile est, quidquid sensu cognosci- 
tur. But, philology apart, the object of the writer in the antithesis 
between Sinai and Sion, plainly shews, that he means to designate the 
former as corporeal, material; the latter as spiritual, invisible, the 
object of faith, but not of the senses. Chrysostom has well drawn the 
comparison, when he says of Sinai, wavta rore duoSyra, Kat dwerc, Kat 
gwvat; of Sion, ravra vonra cai dopara viv. If the reader has any difh- 
culty about the above explanation of Wyagwpévw, a comparison of Exod. 
xix. 12, 13, with it, will hardly leave any doubt as to the meaning of our 
author, who seems plainly to have had in his mind the strict injunction 
then made, not to touch the mountain. 

Kat cexavpév mupt .... Svéddn, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, 
and darkness, and tempest. As to the particulars of the appearance at 
Sinai here mentioned, see Exod, xix. 16—18; ch, xx. 18. Deut. v. 
21—26. 

Kexavpévw xvpt means not, simply, fire, but the burning of it, i.e. 
flame ; see Deut. vy. 23.25. It may also be translated in connexion 
with dpe, sc. the mount that burned with fire. But probably it was 
not the design of the writer that it should be so taken; for, as he has 
arranged dnadwpevy before dper, while it qualifies it, in like manner he 
has arranged xexavyéevw before zvpt, which it also qualifies, 

T'ydégy, is probably the Holic form of védoc, i.q. vepédn, for which the 
JEolians use védoc, or yvddoc. The LXX. use it to translate iY, in 
Deut. iv. 11, et alibi. It is doubtless used by the LXX., and by the 
writer of our epistle, to designate the thick dark cloud that surrounded 
Mount Sinai when God appeared there. The word often means, tene- 
bre. Here it means, the cause of darkness, i.e. thick black clouds. 

Xxérw, Hebrew TON, or BY, the darkness or gloom itself, occa- 
sioned by the cloud upon Sinai, ‘and around it. Overy is designed, 
perhaps, to correspond to the Hebrew, 2D. If not, it is descriptive 
of the tempest that accompanied the dark cloud, the thunder and light- 
ning of Sinai, Exod. xix. 16. 18; ch. xx. 18. 

Ver. 19. Kat oddrvyyog ijxy, and to the sound of the trumpet. See 
Exod. xix. 16. 19. Probably the meaning is, a voice like that of a 
trumpet, i.e. very loud. In Deut. v. 22, it is called a great voice; in 
ch. iv. 12, it is called, the voice of words, i.e. articulate sounds; and in 

2 L 


514 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 20, 21. 


ver. 33, the voice of God. From comparing all these passages togetlier, 
it seems evident that the meaning is, ‘‘ an articulate voice, loud like 
that of a trumpet.” 

Kat owra pndrwv .... yor, and the voice of commands, the hearers 
of which refused that another word should be added to them. Compare — 
Exod. xix. 16. 19; and ch. xx. 18, 19. 

‘Pypdrwy, things uttered or said. But it applies to any sort of 
speech ; and, among other specific significations, it has that of command ; 
see Luke iii. 2. Acts x. 2; ch. xi. 14. Heb. 1.3; ch. xi. 3. So Ta 
in Hebrew, e. g. Esth. i. 19. Josh. i. 13. 1 Sam. xvii. 29. Isa. vin. 10. 
Exod. xxxiv. 28. So also, TWO8, to command, Esth. 1. 17; ch. iv. 13; 
ch. ix. 14. 1 Chron. xxi. 7. See Wahl, on pia. 

‘He ot axovoarrec, k. TX. The exact shade of the writer’s meaning is, 
‘‘ The hearers of which [voice] refused*that a word should be added to 
them, viz. avroic phyact, to those commands.” In other words, the 
exceedingly loud sound of the voice inspired them with such terror, that 
they declined having any more commands addressed to them in this 
manner. 

Ver. 20. Ovx edepov yap . . « ALHPoroSioera, for they could not 
endure the admonition, ‘‘ Even if a beast touch the mountain, it shalt 
be stoned.” See Exod. xix. 13. The Vulgate edition of the New Tes- 
tament adds to this clause, 7 Podide xararokevSjoerar. But no manu- 
script of any authority exhibits this phrase; nor any ancient version ; 
nor any of the ecclesiastical Greek writers, Gicumenius excepted. It is, 
beyond all doubt, an addition of later times, taken from the Septuagint 
of Exod. xix. 13. ©idx Egepov, they could not endure, means, “ they 
were greatly affected with the severity of this command, viz. so that they 
could not bear it without awe and terror.” 

Ver. 21. Kai—otrw goBepov ...... Evrpopioc, and—so terrible was 
the sight—even Moses said, ‘‘ I fear and tremble.” Otrw goPepor ty 
TO payragopevoy seems to me, plainly, an expression thrown in by the 
writer, in order to augment the description of the scene, which interrupts 
the regular narration, and is therefore to be construed as if included in a 
parenthesis. But, as the whole of ver. 20 and 2] is evidently a paren- 
thesis, I have avoided the insertion of the parenthetic marks a second 
tre, and noted the words included within the inner parenthesis by a 
dash at each extremity. Kai, which introduces the last clause here, 
kat. . . Mwvojc, has the force of, and even. 

But where is the history of Moses’ trembling? Nowhere, in the Old 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 22. 515 


Testament is it expressly mentioned. It is implied, however, in Exod. 
xix. 16, where it is said, that “‘ all the people in the camp trembled ;” 
and Moses was with them, compare ch. v. 14. The fear mentioned 
Deut. ix. 19, was on a different occasion, though this passage has often 
been adduced as supporting the affirmation now in question. The par- 
ticular history, to which our author here alludes, was doubtless a matter 
of tradition among the Jews of his day; marks of which are still extant, 
in the Rabbinical writings. See Wetstein, on Gal. iii. 19. L. Cappell, 
on Heb. xii. 21. "Exof3oc¢ ety cai Evrpopoc, means, I am greatly afraid. 

To gavragopevoy, (the neuter participle being used like a neuter 
adjective,) is to be construed as an abstract noun, sc. species, appear- 
ance, sight. This idiom is very common in the writings of Paul. 

Ver. 22. Next follows the antithesis to all this scene of terror which 
accompanied the introduction of the ancient law. Worshippers, under 
the new dispensation, approach a scene of a very different nature. ’ANa 
mpocednruSare Xuwv, but ye are come to Mount Zion. Not the literal 
Mount Zion, but the figurative, i.e. heavenly one. This is made plain, by 
the additional description which follows. Kat wédee Oeov évroc, "Inpov- 
aaripe Exovpaviy, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jeru- 
salem. The epithet érovpariw here determines, of course, that a spiritual 
Jerusalem, a heavenly city, is meant. Compare Heb. xi. 14—16; ch. 
xii. 28; xiit. 14. Gal. iv. 26. Rev. ii. 12; ch. xxi. 2. 10. 

Kai pupidow, ayyéhwv rarvnyipe, and to myriads, the joyful company 
of angels. So, beyond all reasonable doubt, this clause is to be pointed, 
and translated; for ravjyvpec is not to be joined (as some later critics 
have joined it) with éxcAnoig,«.7.d. The structure of the whole paragraph 
demonstrates this; for each separate clause of it, (in ver. 18, 19, 22—24) 
is commenced by «at, and continued (where any addition is made to it) 
by nouns in apposition, without any conjunctive particle before them. 
E. g. cat mode . . « ‘Inpovoadnp éxovpavip'—kal xpirh, Oc@ révtwr, &e. 
The same construction, beyond all reasonable doubt, is to be adopted in 
the clause under examination. Dr. Knapp has arranged it in this 
manner, in his able dissertation on Heb. xii. 18—24, in his Scripta varii 
Argumenti. 

Mupidor, literally, myriads, i. e. ten thousands, used by the Greeks 
to signify a great and indefinite number. In respect to the number of 
angels, compare Rev. v. 11. Matt. xxvi. 53. Luke ii. 13. Dan. vii. 10. 
Havjyvpec, among the Greeks, meant an assembly of men convened on 
a joyous and solemn occasion; e. g. on the occasions of their public 

2L2 


516 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 23. 


feasts, &c. Fhe mention of such an assembly of angels, shows that 
the writer intends to describe the objects of the znvzszble world, as seem 
with the eye of faith; not things palpable, not the objects of sense. 
He has, moreover, a design to contrast this joyful, solemn assembly of 
the angels, with that awful one which was present at the givmg of 
the law upon Sinai. In respect to the presence of angels on that 
oecasion, compare Ps. Ixvili. 17. [18.] Deut. xxin. 2. (Septuagint,) 
Joseph. Antiq. XV. 3. 5. Gal. iii. 19. Acts vii. 53. Heb. il. 2. with the 
Note upon it. 

Our English version joins pypidoe with ayyéhwy, and renders, “ to am 
innumerable company of angels,” It also joins ravnyvpee with éxcdy- 
cig, and renders, ‘‘ to the general assembly and church,” &c. But the 
latter is not permitted, on account of the manner in which the author 
has constructed the whole of his enumeration of particulars, in ver. 
18, 19. 22, 23, which, as I have already observed, are each separated 
from the preceding one, by cat. If it be said, that “ raynyiper, in 
order to be constructed with éyyé\wy, ought to precede it,” the answer 
is, that in ver. 19, cadmeyyog zx» is constructed in the same manner as 
eyyédwy waynyvpe here; as is also dudSijxne peoiry in ver. 24. The 
Greek admits no other correct grammatical mode of construction but 
that which is given in the translation. 

Ver. 23. Kai éxcAnoia . .. év ovpavotc, and to the assembly of the 
Jirst-born enrolled in heaven. ’Exxc\yoia, conventus, a concourse or 
assembly of people. It is not a mere ecclesiastical word, but desig- 
nates, by usage, any kind of assembly sacred or civil. Here it desig- 
nates the sacred assembly of the upper world. T[pwrordécwy must not 
be literally understood here, but figuratively. Among the Hebrews, 
primogeniture conferred distinguished rights and privileges. Hence, 
figuratively taken, zpwroréxoc means, any one who enjoys distinguished 
rights and privileges, whether he is first-born in a literal respect, or 
not. Thus Israel, as beloved of God and highly valued, is called his 
Jirst-born, Exod. iv. 22. In like manner, Ephraim is named, Jer. 
xxxi. 9. So the son of Sirach (ch. xxxvi. 12,) calls Israel. The same 
appellation of endearment is given to the predicted Messiah, in Ps, 
Ixxxix. 27. In a similar sense, dvapx) is used in James 1.18. I under- 
stand it here of those who had been most distinguished for piety and 
usefulness ; such as patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, &c. Storr 
understands it as referring to the angels, and as descriptive of them ; 
but without any good support from the usus loquendi of Scripture. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Xi. 23. 517 


’Amayeypappévwr, enrolled, a word employed by the Greeks to sig- 
nify the inscribing of a person’s name in a record, as a citizen, as a 
free man entitled to all the rights of citizenship. It marks, here, 
citizenship in the New Jerusalem, or the heavenly Zion. The éx«Ayoia 
of such, is that éccAyota with which Christians are to mingle, in the 
full and final enjoyment of their privileges. In a sense somewhat 
different to this, saints, while on earth, are spoken of as having their 
names written (yeypappeva éypagdn, not axoyeypappéva) in the book of 
lifes sence. Lukex,,20. )Philpiv..3,,, Rev. ii.,;. chs xi, 8 5 xy. 85 
xx. 15; xxi. 27; xxii. 19. Dr. Knapp interprets our text, as speak- 
ing of the saints on earth. But he appears not to have noticed the 
difference of the phraseology employed in reference to such; and cer- 
tain it is, that the whole tenor of our passage has respect only to the 
heavenly city and assembly. Yo be enrolled in heaven, is to be entitled 
to all the privileges of a member of the heavenly city. 

Kai kpiry OG wavrwy, and to the judge, the God of all. Kpiy 
designates Him before whose tribunal all must appear, that enter a 
future world. But to Christians he is a merciful, not a condemning 
judge. So means the phrase Ged of all, viz. of all angels, and of all 
mpwrordkwy just mentioned, and (by implication) of all saints. To say, 
“he is theer God,” means to afiirm, that ke acknowledges them with 
favour and approbation. Compare Eph. iv. 6. Rom. iii. 29. Heb. 
VWihlOe sch, xi. 16. Acts vu. 32....Exod.ut. 6... Zech. vu. 8-5 Reve 
xxi, 37. In the same sense, I apprehend, is Gew wavrwv to be under- 
stood in our verse; and then all difficulty ceases, Jn entering a future 
world, Christians must, indeed, present themselves before the tribunal 
of the eternal Judge; but he is not a Judge severe and rigid; he is 
in an appropriate sense, thezr God; he will regard them with favour, 
he will treat them with kindness. Thus all is inviting, with respect 
to the heavenly Zion. The transposition made by our English version, 
to God the judge of all, is against the arrangement of the text, and 
fails to give the appropriate sense of the words. The meaning of 
6 éxt wavtwy Oedc, Rom. ix. 5, is different from Ode wartwy here, 
the former being ‘‘ supreme God.” 

Kat mvevpace Cuxaiwy rerehewpévwy, and to the spirits of the just 
made perfect, 1. e. exalted to a state of final reward. This differs from 
ExkAnola TpwrordKwy aroyeypappévwy év ovpavotc, in that this latter 


phrase designates the more conspicuous and exalted part of the church 


518 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 24. 


invisible, (wporordéxwy,) such as patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, 
&ec.; while mvevpaor ducaiwy embraces all saints, ‘‘ of every kindred, 
See a like distinction in the 
heavenly world adverted to in Rev. iv. 4. That the elders, mentioned 


, 


and tongue, and people, and nation.’ 


in Rey, iv. 4, were of those redeemed from among men, is proved by 
Rev. v. 8,9. Then follows the rvevpara Sducaiwy réreXewpéva, in Rey. 
vy. 13. The passage in our verse, understood in view of this, is intel- 
ligible, and needs none of the varying and endless conjectures which 
have been made respecting it; nor emendations of the text that have 
been proposed. 

TereAewwpévwy, i.e having completed thejr probation, and arrived at 
their mature state, viz. a final state of glory. See on Heb. ii. 10. 

Ver, 24. Kat duaSixne . .. . "Incov, and to the mediator of the 
new covenant, Jesus. See on ch, viii.6; vii. 22, where the same idea 
is exhibited. 

Kai aiware. . . .”APed, and to the blood of sprinkling which 
speaketh better [things] than [the blood of] Abel. Respecting the 
blood of Christ offered in the eternal sanctuary, see Heb. ix. 11—14, 
23. In respect to sprinkling, see ch. ix. 13. 19. Figuratively or 
spiritually, no doubt, this is to be understood. Sprinkled with Jesus’ 
blood, the worshippers in the sanctuary above may approach the 
presence of God, i.e. the inner sanctuary, confident of a gracious 
reception. 

Kpeirrov Nadovy7i, instead of kpeirrova dadodyri, for the weight of 
authority is, beyond all doubt, on the side of kpeirrdv. Literally rendered, 
kpetrrov would be, something better. But this is less grateful to the 
English ear than the form of expression in the version, The meaning 
of the phrase seems to me quite simple and easy. The blood of Christ 
proclaims pardon and peace; the blood of Abel cried to God from 
the ground (Gen. iv. 10.) for the infliction of punishment upon his 
murderer. Tlapa voy (not 70)”A(nd, is an elliptical expression, for 
mapa TO atpa tov” And. That the verb Aadet is wnderstood, in order 
to complete the grammatical sense of the phrase, is quite plain. The 
form of the sentence, however, must be varied in order to express this 
verb. It would be thus, #70 aipa rod ”ABnd dadel. 

Such is the contrast between the former and latter dispensation. 
There, all is awful, terrible, and threatening; here, all is alluring, 


gracious, and animating. Who, now, can adhere to the former, and 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 25, 26. 519 


renounce the latter? Such is the nature of the argument presented by 
the writer. He next proceeds to warn the Hebrews, in the most solemn 
and affectionate manner, against a renunciation of their Christian faith 

Ver. 25. Bndémere, pj....Aadovvra, take heed that ye turn not away 
Srom him who addresses you. Tapairgéopae means, to deprecate, to 
decline, to endeavour to avoid, aversari, respuere, repudiare. But who 
is roy Nadovyra? The sequel of the verse clearly shows that Christ is 
meant, who came from heaven to instruct men, and warn them of their 
danger, or rather (with reference to the preceding verse) ‘‘ who speaks 
to men by his blood.” 

To give efficacy to this warning, he adds an example. Ei yup éxeivae... 
xpnparilovra, for if they did not escape [punishment,]| who rejected him 
that warned them upon earth, That after épvyor, either ducjy, arwdecav, 
or some such word, is to be supplied by the mind of the reader, is plain 
from the nature of the subject, and of the context. But who is roy 
xenpariZovra? Moses, 1 answer. The two dispensations are here com- 
pared, in respect to the penalty to be inflicted on the contemptuous and 
refractory. The legislator, or head of each dispensation, is introduced, 
as the person who addresses the laws or warnings of God to men. See 
the same sentiment in Heb. x. 28, 29. 

TToMAP pG@AAov .... Aroorpepopevor, much more shall we [not escape, | 
if we turn away from him [who warns us] from heaven. See a similar 
commination in ch, ii. 1—3; x. 28,29. That ypnparigovra is implied 
after roy, results from common grammatical usage. ’A7 ovparvdy is 
meant to represent, either that Christ came from heaven and warned 
them, or that being in heaven he now warns them, viz. by his messengers. 
It is possible, however, that God is here meant by the writer, as he who 
warns them. But the antithesis between the head of the old dispensa- 
tion and the new, in the passage, hardly admits of this construction. 

The ellipses of ob gevédueSa after jysic, is sufficiently plain from the 
nature of the sentence. 

Ver. 26. Ob} gw)... . rére, whose voice then shook the earth ; viz. 
when, as with the sound of a mighty trumpet, waxing louder and 
louder, he spake on mount Sinai, so that the earth trembled: see on 
ver., 19 seq- 

Niy d¢.... ovpardy, but now he has promised, saying, ‘‘ Yet once 
more, will I shake not only the earth, but heaven also.” ”Ert drag 
corresponds to the Hebrew OY) NIN WY, yet once, after a little time, 
Hag. ii. 6. The citation is from the Septuagint, but ob pdvor is an 


520 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 27, 28. 


addition by the writer of our epistle, and is designed to give emphasis to 
the declaration. That the passage has respect to the changes which 
would be introduced by the coming of the Messiah, and the new dis- 
pensation which he would commence, is evident from Hag. ii. 7—9. 
Such figurative language is frequent in the Scriptures, and denotes 
great changes which are to take place. So the apostle explains it 
here, in the very next verse. Compare Isa. xiii, 13. Hag. ni. 21, 22. 
Joel ui. 16; ch. 11.10. 31. Matt. xxiv. 29—31: compare ver. 34. 

Ver. 27. To d€, érvimag . . . cadevdpeva, now this ‘ Yet once more,” 
signifies a removing of the things which are shaken, as of created things, 
wn order that the things which are not shaken may continue. ‘The 
manner in which the writer understood the figurative expression in ques- 
tion, viz. the shaking of the heavens and the earth, is here plainly 
declared. It denotes a great change, a peraSeorc, removal, or abolition, 
of the things changed, i. e. of the Jewish dispensation. The language 
which had been literally applied to the quaking of Sinai when the law 
was given, is now figuratively applied, in the usual scriptural way, in 
order to denote a great change of a moral nature. 

‘Qe rerompévwy is a locus vexatissimus. It would be of little use to 
detail the various opinions upon it; most of which seem to have sprung 
from a misapprehension of the meaning of the paragraph in which it 
stands. Even Michaélis and Storr interpret the passage as referring to 
changes in the natural world, at the end of time; most evidently, against 
the meaning of the writer. I understand rerompévwy to designate simply 
things made or created, xeworoinra, caduca, mutabilia; ideas neces- 
sarily implied by a term which designates things of a corporeal and 
created nature, as here. The writer means to say, that the ancient order 
of things, viz. the Jewish dispensation, will be changed, removed, abo- 
lished, in like manner as the objects of the natural creation. In other 
words, like them, it is caduca, mutabilis, evanida ; and, like them, it will 
undergo a change. It really seems that more difficulty has been made 
about the phrase in question, than was necessary. 

All this change or abolition of the old dispensation was to take place, 
in order that a new one might be introduced, which shall undergo no 
change; iva petvy rau po) cadXevdpeva. 

Ver. 28. Aw Baoelay . . . . rapadapBdvovrec, wherefore, having 
obtained a kingdom which cannot be shaken, i. e. the gospel dispen- 
sation, the Bacrelay rot Oeov, Or rod yproTod, OF Tov obpavov, a Tegnum 


immutabile, Plainly the Pacwreiav aoddevroy here, is the opposite or 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 29; xu. 1. $21 


antithesis of caXevopevwy in the clause above, which must therefore mean, 
(in such a connexion) the Jewish dispensation. The new dispensation 
is not, we werompévwr, like the objects of creation, i. e. is not mutable, 
caducous, but aoddevrorv, emmutable, not to be shaken, not to be changed. 

"Exwpev Xap .. . evhaPeiac, let us manifest our gratitude, (by 
which we may serve God acceptably,) with reverence and devotion. 
"Exwpev xapu, gratiam habeamus, i. e. let us express, manifest, exhibit 
gratitude, viz. for the unshaken kingdom, which we have received, with 
all its privileges, preferences, and blessings. Ev’apéorwe, acceptably, 
i, e. gratitude for such blessings is due to God, and to render it will be 
well-pleasing in his sight. 

Mera aidove cat ebdaPelac, with pious reverence, i. e. let us not only 
exhibit gratitude to God for the mercies of the gospel, but let us add to 
this prous reverence for his spotless and awful perfections. “EvAdGea 
means, piety, pious devotedness, the spirit of religious devotion ; and 
aidwe means reverence. I take the two words as designed to convey an 
idea of the zntense.pious reverence which ought to be paid to the great 
God whom the gospel exhibits. The principle, that one of two synony- 
mous nouns, in such cases, may be employed for the sake of intensity, 
hardly needs to be again stated ; and that one of them may be employed 
in the room of an adjective is equally plain; so that, if we choose, we 
may translate, ‘‘ with profound reverence.” 

Ver. 29. Kai yap ...... Karavanioxoy, for our God is a consuming 
Jire. If this be not a quotation, the image is drawn from the description 
of Sinai (ver. 18), which was still in the writer’s mind. The idea is, that 
God, if called to punish unbelief, is not only surrounded by flaming fire, 
as he was on mount Sinai, but this is also wip karavaNioxoy, devouring, 
destructive, tormenting fire. The awful punishment of unbelievers and 
apostates is set forth, by the expression in question, in a very striking 
manner. But probably the expression is a quotation of Deut. iv. 24, 
where it is employed by way of commination. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 1. ‘H gu\adeddia pevérw, let brotherly love continue, i.e. let it be 
constant, let it remain in exercise. I am, on the whole, disposed to 
believe that the writer means to say, ‘‘ Let it continue to be as it has 
hitherto been ;” for he has repeatedly commended them, in our epistle, 


522 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 2, 3, 4. 


for their social sympathies and brotherly feeling, ®:AadeAgia is the 
mutual love of Christians as such. 

Ver. 2. Tije gudokeviag po) émidavSavecSe, cease not to practise hospi- 
tality, or, forget not hospitality. This was peculiarly a duty, in those 
times of persecution and distress, when many were suffering the loss of 
their means of subsistence, and were obliged to cast themselves on the 
charity of their brethren. 

Ata ravrncg yup «+... ayyedove, for by this some have entertained 
angels unawares. ”"EhaSov Eevicayrec, a truly Attic mode of expression ; 
for the Greeks were wont to join the verb X\av3dyw with the participle of 
another verb, when they wished to express the idea, that the action 
indicated by that other verb was done unconsciously, undesignedly, with- 
out foresight. Literally, the phrase may be translated, some entertaining 
angels were ignorant, viz. that they were doing so. See examples of 
the kind referred to in Gen. xviii. 2, seq. and Gen, xix. 1, seq. The 
meaning of the whole is, ‘‘ Continue to practise hospitality, since 
greater honour and reward is consequent upon it,+¢han you might be 
ready to suppose.” 

Ver. 3. MuuvhoxeoSe .... ovvdecepévor, remember those who are in 
bonds, as if ye yourselves were fellow-prisoners. The writer had before 
adverted to their past sufferings under persecution, ch. x. 32—34; and 
also to their present trials, ch. x. 36; xii. 3—5. Here he exhorts them 
to sympathize with those who are in bonds, as if they themselves were 
in the like condition, because they were continually exposed to be 
thrown into prison. A high degree of sympathy is designated by the 
expression We ovvdedepevol. 

Toy caxovyovpéywv....owpare, [remember] those who are injuriously 
treated, us [it becomes] those who are themselves still in the body. 
"Ovrec ty TO chpart, i. e. daily exposed themselves to persecution and 
suffering ; and therefore liable to need commiseration from others. 

Ver. 4. Tipuoc 0 yupoc.eeee-cpiavroc, let marriage be honourable 
among all, and the bed undefiled. So it should be rendered, because 
the whole strain is hortatory. So Schulz, ‘‘ Ehrenwerth sei allen die 
Ehe.” It is capable of another version, viz. marriage is honouraole 
for all, §c. ’Ev raat ripocg may also be translated, ts altogether honour- 
able. The first method, however, of rendering the phrase, seems to me 
preferable ; as it is then made to be congruous with the context. 

The fact, that such an exhortation is here addressed to the Hebrews, 
shows, either that some of them were chargeable with a breach or me 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xIll. 5, 6, 7. 523 


precept respecting chastity, or that they were in danger of becomirg so. 
Polygamy and concubinage were practised all around them, and had 
been for time immemorial. The demands of Christianity, then, in 
respect to these practices, might seem a grievance to some of the 
Hebrew Christians, and probably they were tempted not to regard them, 
and needed caution. 

Tlopvove b&..+.+.@edc, but whoremongers and adulterers, God will 
punish or judge ; i.e. those who live in fornication, while unmarried, 
or commit adultery after marriage, will not escape Divine indignation. 

Ver. 5. ’Agidtdpyvpog .... mapovor, let your conduct be free from 
covetousness ; and be content with what ye have. ”“Eorw is understood 
after 6 rpdémoc, for the sentence is hortatory. Tpdzog means behaviour, 
the same as 7)20c, manner of life. ’Apxovpevor rote rapovar, 1. e. indulge 
no greedy desires for earthly possessions, but cheerfully submit to the 
allotment of Providence in respect to these things. 

Ab’roc yap .... éyxaradirw, for he hath said, I will never leave thee, 
nor forsake thee; i.e. God hath promised to provide for you in the 
best manner, and you should put your trust in him. The phrase here 
quoted, may come either from Deut. xxxi.6; Josh. i. 5; or 1 Chron. 
xxvill. 20. 

Ver. 6. "Qore Bappotyrac .... dvOowroc, so that we may boldly say, 
“ The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear. What can man do tome ?” 
The quotation is from Ps. exviii. 6; where the Hebrew, which corre- 
sponds to Kuptog épuol BonQdc, is % mim, Jehovah is for me. The verse 
is divided by the accents in Hebrew, as the translation above divides it. 
The apostle has given the sense exactly ; ware Oappotyrac tpac, sc. eivat, 
which is implied after wore. The meaning of the verse is, ‘‘ Under 
whatever trials and difficulties we may be placed, we need not be filled 
with terror or painful apprehension ; for God will help us.” 

Ver. 7. Mynpovevere .... Ocov, remember your leaders, who have 
spoken unto you the word of God. ‘Hyovdpevor, duces, presides, leaders, 
guides, directors, which here means teachers, as the explanatory clause 
that follows clearly shows. Adyoy rod Ocot, the gospel. 

“Qy avabewpodvrrec .... rior, and attentively considering the end of 
their manner of life, imitate their faith. That is, calling to mind the 
peaceful and happy death of those religious teachers among you, who 
gave you instruction respecting the word of life, imitate their faith, 
i.e. persevere in your Christian profession, as they did, to the very 
end of life. 


524 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 8, 9. 


Storr and others refer &Gaow rij¢ avacrpopijc to the sequel or reward 
that ensued, in consequence of the manner of life which these teachers 
had led. But I cannot find reason enough to believe, that éGacw may 
be properly understood in such a sense. It is not improbable, that the 
writer refers here to the triumphant death of Stephen, Acts vii., and of 
James, Acts xii. He exhorts his readers to follow the example of those 
faithful Christian teachers, who had died a peaceful and happy death, 
although, perhaps, a premature one. 

Ver. 8. "Inaote Xpiorog . . « aidvac, Jesus Christ is the same yes- 
terday, to-day, and for ever. That is, Christ is always the same, 
always ready and willimg to aid you in all your trials: compare ch. vii. 
Seto 178 2 25.2855 Valsouch: we Gs Qesinaisy 18 kh OAs Peele ean 
23. ‘O avrde corresponds with ov 6 abroc ci. Ps. cii, 28, [Septuagint, 
ci. 27,] in Hebrew, NVI ALIN, which there designates immutability or 
eternity ; for the parallel distich is, Thy years shall not come to an 
end. The absolute eternity of Christ, (a parte ante, et a parte post) 
is not here directly asserted ; but the simple object of the writer is, to 
show that ‘‘ he ever liveth to aid his disciples.” To refer the expres- 
sion to Christian doctrine, and unite this verse with the one which 
follows, seems to me plainly a deserting of the obvious intention of the 
writer. Dr. Schulz construes the passage as I have done. Xée, kat 
oipepov, Kat elc Tove awyvac, is a Hebraism, used to express the past, 
the present, and the future ; and 6 airdc, joined with these, denotes 
emmutabilrty. 

Ver. 9. AwWayate rouwidag . . . rapagéperse, be not carried hither 
and thither by diverse and strange doctrines. Torkidae cai Lévace 
designates doctrines different, diverse, from true Christian doctrine, and 
foreign (strangers) to it. Such were the doctrines of the Judaizing 
teachers, respecting many of their ceremonial observances and _tradi- 
tionary rites; and to these the writer here adverts, as appears by the 
sequel. For rupagépeoSe, some manuscripts and editions have repi@é- 
oeaSe, which Ernesti, and some other critics, prefer; but it is not sup- 
ported by equal authority. 

Kadoy yap xdpite . . » mepumarioarrec, for it is good that the heart 
should be confirmed by grace, not by meats, by which those have not 
been profited who have been occupied therewith <A difficult ex- 
pression, about which there has been a great variety of opinion and 
conjecture. Xdpire seems to me plainly to refer here to the gracious 
truth or doctrine, of the Christian religion, The writer had just said, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xill. 10, 11. 525 


Be not tessed to and fro by doctrines diverse and alien from Chris- 
tianity.” Next follows the assertion, ‘It is good to be established, 
[settled, confirmed] in the gracious doctrines of the gospel, rather than 
to put confidence in meats, &c. Construed in this way, all is plain 
and congruous. /pwpmacr indicates the various kinds of meats, which 
were distinguished by the Judaizing Christians into clean and unclean ; 
the first of which might be safely and properly eaten; but the second 
must be avoided, on peril of losing one’s character for piety, and incur- 
ring the displeasure of God. All attention to this subject the writer 
regards as useless; and avers, that those who have been sedulously 
attentive to it, have reaped no spiritual profit from it. Iepurarijcarrec 
like the Hebrew ANT, means, to be concerned with, to be occupiea 
with, to bestow one’s attention upon. In regard to the unprofitableness 
of such an attention to meats, compare Heb. vii. 18. 

Ver. 10. "Exopuev .... Narpevovrec, we have an altar, of which those 
have no right to eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. 
A figurative expression, borrowed from the Jewish ritual, and accommo- 
dated to express the privileges of Christians. According to the usages 
of sacrifice, in most cases, some part or parts of the victims offered, 
were reserved for the use of the priests, and, in some cases, were to be 
eaten also by the offerer: see Lev. vi. 26. Numb. xviil. 9, 10. Lev. vii. 
33, 34. Numb. vi. 19. Lev. vii. 15; ch. xix. 6. But the my was 
a holocaust, i. e. an offering which was to be entirely consumed by fire ; 
particularly, the Miby offered on the great day of atonement, Lev. 
xvi. 14—16. 27; ch. iv. 3—12. The reference in our text is to those 
sacrifices, a part of which were eaten by the priests and the offerers, 
in so far as the writer alludes to partaking of them. But when he 
says, that ‘‘ Christians have a sacrifice, of which those who pay their 
service to the altar have no right to partake,” he means, that the bene- 
fits procured by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, do not belong, or will 
not be granted, to such as rest their hopes of salvation on the ritual 
sacrifices of the Jewish law, i. e. to such as continue to be disciples of 
Judaism, or turn back from Christianity to Judaism, and thus renounce 
the blessings procured for believers by the death of Christ. 

Ver. 11. “Quy yap ciogéperar......mapePodijc, moreover, the bodies of 
those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary as a sin- 
offering, by the high priest, were burned without the camp. See 
Lev. xvi. 11. 14—16. 27. The construction of the verse is peculiar; 
and, literally translated, would run thus, ‘‘ The blood of which animals 


526 COMMENTARY ON HEB. xItl. 12, 13. 


was broucht into the sanctuary... the bodies of the same were burned,” 
&c. To make the verse plain, the arrangement has been altered in the 
translation. ‘Apapriac, sin-offering, or mepi apapriac, [offering] on 
account of sin, which conveys the same idea. The object, in offering 
the blood of goats and bullocks in the most holy place, was to make 
atonement for sin.  apeu/3oAfje, camp, refers to the time when the 
Israelites were in the wilderness and all] lived in encampments. 

Ver. 12. Aw cat Incote .... ExaSe, wherefore, Jesus also, in order 
that he might make expiation for the people by his own blood, suffered 
without the gate: ‘Aywéon, might make expiation; see on ch. il. 11. 
Aca rov idtov alparog: compare ch. ix. 12. 14, 25, 26; ch. x. 19. 
Acts xx. 28. Eph.i. 7. 1 Pet.i.19. Rev. 1.5; ch. v.9. "Eéw rije rvAne, 
viz. the gate of Jerusalem; for he was crucified on Calvary, which was 
then without the walls of the city, although it is now within them. 

Ver. 11, 12, are designed as a comparison between the sacrifice on 
the great day of atonement, and the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. The 
blood of the former was presented before God, in the most holy place; 
the blood of the latter, in the eternal sanctuary above, ch. ix. 12.23, 24 
The bodies of the beasts, used for the former, were consumed or destroyed 
without the camp; the body of Jesus was sacrificed or destroyed, with 
out the gate of Jerusalem. The atoning sacrifice of Christians is 
analogous, then, to that of the Jews; but of infinitely higher efficacy ; 
eompare ch. ix. 13, 14; x. 4. 12. 

The particular object, however, of ver. 11, 12, is to introduce Christ 
as an example of suffering, in order to impress upon the Hebrews the 
necessity of perseverance in their Christian profession, amidst all their 
trials and difficulties. But the manner of introducing this example, is 
altogether in unison with the analogies which are so often repeated in 
other parts of our epistle. 

Ver. 13. Toivuy éiepyopesa....hépovrec, let us, then, go forth to him 
without the camp, bearing reproach like his. That is, “since Jesus 
suffered persecution, ignominy, and distress, let us follow him, even if 
we endure reproaches like those which he endured. Let us leave the 
camp, i. e. the dwellings of the Jews, or the profession of Judaism, and 
go over to the place where Christians dwell, although it be without the 
city.” In other words, Let us adhere to the profession of Christianity, 
although it be counted as ignominious, and worthy of reproach. In 
respect to suffering with Christ, compare Rom. viii. 17. 2 Tim. ii. 10, 11. 
1 Pet. iv. 13, 2Cor. iv. 10. Rev. i. 9. That évedcopodr abrod means 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. xt. 15, 16. 527 


reproaeh such as Christ suffered, is plain from the object of the writer. 
Compare Col. i. 24, which is exactly in point; and see on Heb, xi. 26. 

Ver. 14. Ov yap Exopey 2... emtsnrovper, for here we have no perma- 
nent city, Gut we seek for one yet future. In ch. xi. 14, the writer 
calls the heavenly inheritance which the patriarchs sought, razpida ; 
and afterwards, (ver. 16,) wédcw. Here the appellation wédw is used, 
because the writer had just been alluding to Christians being thrust out, 
or going out of the city, viz. of Jerusalem, as Christ did, to suffer 
ignominy. The design of our verse is, to show the Hebrews, that it 
cannot be of any great importance, should they be exiled from their 
dwelling-places, and the habitations of their Jewish kindred; for, in 
this world, no habitation, no place of abode, can be pévovoa, perma- 
nent, lasting. By profession, Christians, like the patriarchs, were 
seeking zarpida érovedrvir, and consequently, wéAuw péddoveay, an abode 
yet future, a residence in the world to come. 

Ver. 15. Ai airov otv . . . Gag, by him, therefore, let us continually 
present to God the sacrifice of praise. Ai abrov, viz. by Christ, i. e. 
let us present such an offering, by him who is our great High-priest ; 
not a sacrifice of goats or bullocks, but a sacrifice of praise. In other 
words, “‘ Let us, as Christians, offer praises to God for the blessings 
of the gospel vouchsafed to us.” 

Tovr’ tort, kaproy . . . . dydpart udrov, that is, the fruct of our 
lips ascribing praise to him. The expression, sacrifice of praise, 
TTA mt, is found in Lev. vii. 12. A phrase similar to fruit of the 
lips, is used i Hosea, ch. xiv. 3, Hebrew, naw op m92W3, where 
Septuagint capréy xekéwy. The meaning of our phrase is, ne the 
lips utter, viz. when they ascribe praise (dpodoyovvrwy) to God. So, 
Proy. xviii. 20, DB, the fruit of the lips, i. e. what a man says, his 
words. 

‘Oporoyotyrwy, like the Hebrew, TH, means, fo praise, celebrate, 
publicly ackowledge. ‘Ovépare is here, as commonly, a periphrasis for 
the agent to whom the name belongs, viz. God; so that the sense is the 
same as7@ Oco. 

What follows ror’ geri, is added by the writer, in order to guard 
against the apprehension of any one, that he was exhorting them to 
offer the ritual sacrifices prescribed by the law. 

Ver. 16. Tic d€ evrotiac . . . Oedc, moreover, forget not kindness, 
and liberality ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ’Emuav- 


Savw governs the genitive evrovtac and xowwwviac. The same strain of 


528 COMMENTARY GON HEB. XIII. 17. 


language as before, is continued in this verse. Beneficence, or kind- 
ness toward the suffering, and liberality toward the needy, are called 
acceptable sacrifices, or, such as God is pleased with. The sentiment 
is, ‘‘ duties like these, Christianity requires ; not the blood of bullocks 
and goats.” 

Ver. 17. TeiSecSe . . . vretxere, obey your leaders, and be subject 
to them. ‘Hyovpévotc, in ver. 7, above, is clearly used in the sense 
of teachers, who were, in fact, the guides or leaders of the Christian 
community. If there be any difference between reiSeoe in this case, 
and wreixere, the first has reference to positive obedience, in regard to 
any directions given them; the second prohibits any opposition to the 
teachers, in the measures which they might adopt to promote the 
improvement and the order of their religious community. 

Abrot yap dyputvojow .... amodwoortec, for they watch over your 
souls, as those who must render an account. ‘Aypurvovor, watch ; the 
image seems to be taken from the practice of shepherds, who watch 
with solicitude over their flocks, in order that they may preserve them 
fiom the ravages of wild beasts. See the like imagery employed, 
respecting the prophet Ezekiel, ch. ii. 17. 

‘Yrép roy Wuyov tur, i.e. for you, po wD. ‘Qe NOyor arodwaorTEc, 
viz. to God, to whom “ every one must give an account of himself ;” 
particularly, every one put in a place of trust with regard to spiritual 
duties. 

“Iva pera yapac «2+. Touro, [so obey] that they may do this with joy, 
and not with grief; for this would be unprofitable to you. 

“Iva, x. tr. X. Icannot but connect with Aoyoy arocwoorrec. The sen- 
timent is, ‘“‘ That they may render their account with joy, because of the 
obedience which has been paid to their admonitions, and of the safety in 
which their flock are placed thereby.”” An account of successful labours 
will indeed be a joyful account, to the ministers of the divine word. In 
* respect to grammatical construction, iva seems to be connected with the 
verbs in the first part of the verse, viz. weiSeoSe . . . vrelKETE ....06 
iva pera Xapac, kK. T. A.3 but rovro wowwou necessarily refers to something 
already mentioned, which the teachers must do; and what is this but 
Adyov arodwoev? I have been constrained, therefore to supply the 
ellipse in the Greek here from the preceding context, and to translate, 
So obey, Sc. 

My arevagorrec, literally, not groaning, i. e. not grieving ; the effect 
being put for the cause. It is only a negative form of expression here, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 18, 19, 20. 529 


designed to repeat the same idea as is conveyed by pera xapac, and to 
render it more intense. ’Advoiredeg yap, another negative expression, 
which means as much as to say, ‘f This would be very hurtful or noxious 
to you;”’ i. e. should their Christian teachers be compelled to give an 
account of unbelief and want of subjection in them, the consequences 
would be distressing. 

Ver. 18. MpoocetxecSe rept hudv .. . avacrpéperSar, pray for us; 
Sor we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all things 
to conduct ourselves uprightly. The request of the writer, that he may 
have an interest in their prayers, shows the friendly feelings and con- 
fidence which he entertained respecting them. He appeals to the sin- 
cerity and uprightness of his Christian deportment, as an evidence that 
he might claim a Christian sympathy for himself. ’Ev raou, «. r. d. aug- 
ments, or renders intensive, the idea contained in the preceding clause. 

Ver. 19. Ieptocorépwe oe . . . tpiv, and I request this the more ear- 
nestly, in order that I may speedily be restored to you. This seems 
plainly to imply, that the writer was detained from paying those a visit 
whom he addressed, by some adverse circumstances, viz. either by 
imprisonment, sickness, or some like cause. It also implies, that he is 
known to them, and they to him; for it indicates that he had formerly 
been among them. 

Ver. 20. ‘O d€ Osdc . . . “Inooty, now, may the God of peace, that 
raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, who by the blood of an everlasting 
covenant, has become the great Shepherd of the sheep. ‘O ccc rij¢ 
eipnync, God who bestows happiness, auctor salutis. The Greek ciphyn, 
in the New Testament, like the Hebrew Di, means, every kind of bless- 
ing or happiness. ‘O avayaywv, who brought up, raised up, restored. 
Tov woméva . . . Toy péyay, compare John x. 11, 14—18. 

"Ey aipare GcaShxye aiwviov, some join with dvayaywy. But what can 
be the sense of raising Christ from the dead by the blood of the ever- 
lasting covenant? Almighty power raised him from the dead; not the 
blood of the covenant. Beyond all reasonable doubt, then, éy atpazc, 
«. r. X. characterises the great Shepherd, who ‘ laid down his life for 
the sheep,” John x .15; and whosanctioned a new testament or covenant 
by his blood, Heb. ix. 15—23. Matt. xxvi. 28. The meaning is, that 
‘« the great Shepherd is provided with, or (so to speak) carries along with 
him, blood sanctioning a covenant which is of perpetual force. So, in 
Heb. ix. 25, the high priest is said to have entered yearly into the most 
noly place, ev adXorpiy aipart, i. e. carrying with him the blood of bul- 

2M 


530 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 21, 22. 


locks and goats. See also Wahl’s Lexicon, év, No.2. The phrase is 
plainly an allusion to the preceding discussion, in ch. ix. I have ren- 
dered it so as to prevent a mistake in regard to its true meaning. 

Ver. 21. Karaprioa tae éy rayti epyp ayadg, fit you for every good 
work, i. e. prepare you in all respects to act worthily of the Christian 
name, enable you in all respects as Christians to discharge your duties. 
Eile 70 rotjoat 70 YéAnpa avrov, so that you may do his will, i. e. perform 
all which he requires. This is of the same import as the dative with ev, 
in the preceding clause. : 

Tlody év ipiv .... Xptorov, working in you that which is pleasing to 

_him, through Jesus Christ. That is, enabling you to perform all your 
Christian duties, which will be acceptable, evapecroy Evwmwv avrov, 
pleasing in his sight, 125? iD, pleasing to him. Aca Inood Xprorov, 
i.e. may he do this, for Christ’s sake, through Christ, or, perhaps, by 
the influence of the Christian religion. 

"Qu i) Oda... .’Apiyy, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen. The 
nearest antecedent to 6, is I. Xpiorod; and to him, it seems to me, the 
doxology plainly belongs. Other examples, of a similar nature, may be 
easily shown; e. g. Rev. i. 6. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 2 Pet. iii. 18. Doxologies 
introduced into the midst of a letter, in this way, are characteristic of 
the writings of Paul. 

Ver. 22. Tapaxad@ o¢ ipacg.... wapaxdjoewc, moreover, I beseech 
you, brethren, to bear with this word of exhortation ; for I have written 
briefly to you. ’Avéxw means, to bear patiently with, to receive or per- 
mit with kind feelings, to put up with. Adyov mapaxdjoewe is simply 
exhortation. Some refer this only to the last part of the epistle; but 
the whole is intermixed with hortatory admonitions. The writer, after 
speaking so plainly, and giving warnings so awful, endeavours to win 
those whom he addresses, to a patient toleration of his plain dealing. 

Ava Bpayéwy, an usual Greek expression for breefly, within a short 
compass. ‘‘ But how,” it is asked, ‘‘ could Paul say this, when this 
epistle is longer than any one of his—that to the Romans, and the first 
to the Cerinthians, excepted?” But is it to be supposed, that those 
whom the apostle now addressed were acquainted with all of his other 
epistles; and that they would estimate the force of dua Bpayéwy, by a 
comparison of our epistle with them? It is much more reasonable to 
suppose, that the writer means to say, that he had written briefly, con- 
sidering the importance and difficulty of the subjects of which he had 
treated. And who will deny this ? 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII 23, 24, 25. 53 


Ver. 23. Vuwoxere .... aoXedupévory, know ye that [our] brother 
Timothy is sent away. See, on the meaning of this, Introduction, 
pp- 92, seq. 

Mc6’ ob .... tpac, with whom, if he speedily return, I shall visit 
you. M0’ od, in company with whom. ’Eay raxvov Epxnrac implies, 
that Timothy was then absent. Of course, azode\vpévoy cannot well 
mean set at liberty. But if the meaning be as I have rendered it, then 
is the reason plain why Paul should say, éay toxnra. If Timothy was 
imprisoned at Rome, and seé at liberty there, why should the writer 
(at Rome) speak of his coming to him? If in some other place, how 
should he know of his liberation, sooner than those whom he addressed ? 

Ver. 24. ’Aordcacbe ravrac .... dyiovc, salute all your leaders, and 
all the saints. ’AcxdcacOe means, Present them with my kind wishes, 
and my regard for their welfare. ‘Ayiove, those wha are consecrated to 
Christ, professing Christeans, sarnts. 

ZAGHALOVTAL ~. ~~ «=. *Iraniac, they of Italy salute you; viz. the 
Italians, see Introduction, pp. 98, seq. This shows that the writer 
was in Italy; from which country he sends the kind greeting of 
Christians there. 

Ver. 25. ‘H ydpte pera ravrwy voy, Amy, grace be with you all, 
Amen; a frequent form of benediction in the apostolic epistles. Xdpec 
means, Divine favour or blessing. 

The subscription to this epistle runs thus: IIpdc¢ “EGpaioue éypagn ad 
rijc “Iradiag dua TysoSéov. Like most of the other subscriptions to the 
epistles, it is of no authority. It is demonstrably erroneous here; for 
how could Timothy write this epistle, when the author says, at its very 
close, that Timothy was then absent? The author of this subscription, 
one is tempted to think, had either read the epistle with very little care, 
or with very little understanding of its contents. 


END OF COMMENTARY 


2mM2 


TA 4 $83 ELA =. bias: 
a \4 ve y 
; aes wiry He aia a 
at Pei a | at 
> billet “SO oem ; 


Ofes; 
a ip 


oF ~ 


has fr : at 





533 


Evx Cor RS. Us: 


EXCURSUS I. 
Heb. i. 2.—Av ov kat rove ai@vac éroiyes. 


THERE still remains a difficulty in this passage, (in common with 
Eph. iii. 9,) as to the form of expression, or, rather, as to the object of the 
assertion. 

In John i. 3, it is said, ravra dv airod [Adyou] éyévero; in 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
Ev ov ['Incot Xprorov] ra mavra; in Col. i. 15, éy atr@ [Xpioro] 
éxrioSn ta mévra; in Col. i. 16, ra révra &’ airov [Xpuorov].... 
txrearac; and in Heb. i. 10O—12, od car’ apyac.... ri yiv éSepe- 
Aiwoac, kal Epya THY XELpGy ov eioly oi ovpavot. In all these passages, 
the creation of all things is simply ascribed to Christ; just in the 
same manner, as in Gen.i. ]., God is said to have created the heavens 
and the earth. 

The reader is desired to mark the mode of expression, in the passages 
above quoted ; as it is important for him to have a distinct cognizance of 
it, in order that he may perceive the difficulty which I am about to state. 
If the Scriptures had no where ascribed the creation to any other than 
the Logos or Christ, and had employed, in ascribing it to him, only such 
language as that just quoted above, I cannot perceive that any inter- 
preter of the sacred writings would have ever thought of ascribing cre- 
ation to any other than to the Logos simply; I mean, that so far as the 
Scriptures are concerned, he never would have thought of ascribing any 
sentiment to them, in respect to this subject, but that which assigrs 
creatorship simply and solely to Christ or the Logos. There is, plainly, 
no difference in the mode of expression, in the Bible, which asserts 
creatorship of God, or which asserts it of Christ. I must be understood, 


of course, to affirm this here, only of that class of texts which has just 
been quoted above. 


534 EXCURSUS I. 


But there is another view of this subject, which presents difficulties 
that cannot be surmounted without some effort. The Scriptures do 
indeed ascribe creatorship to the Logos; as we have seen. But do the 
sacred writers mean to ascribe it to him absolutely, in the highest sense, 
as his sole and independent act? Or, do they represent him as creating 
by direction of the supreme God, and under his superintendence? In 
other words, was the Logos the original author of the universe; or, was 
he only the instrument by which the original author brought it into being? 
—Questions easily asked ; but answered with somewhat more difficulty, 
than unreflecting minds may at first imagine. ll is to be resolved by 
what the Scriptures have taught us. So one and all, who profess any 
sacred regard for the Scriptures, must concede. What then say the 
Scriptures on this point of all points, in respect to the great question of 
the real nature of Christ? Is he Creator by virtue of his own, or by 
virtue of a delegated power ? 

One thing it appears somewhat important to consider, before we 
advance any farther in the investigation of this subject. If Christ were 
only the instrument employed by the supreme God to bring the creation 
into existence, and to arrange it in its present order, the sacred writers 
might assert, and might truly assert, that wavra ov abrov éyévero, or, év 
avrg éxrioSn ra wavra. It may be said, with equal truth, that the church 
of St. Paul’s in London was built by Christopher Wren, and that it was 
built by the monarch who was the procuring cause or author of the 
structure, and by whose direction, and at whose expense, it was 
reared. Every day, men familiarly employ language in this manner, 
ascribing the building of a structure, either to the owner, or to the 
architect, just as the nature of the case may require. 

Do the Scriptures ascribe creation then to Christ, as archetect 
merely ; or, as original author and deviser of the whole? In other 
words, Is that class of texts, which ascribe creation to Christ, to be 
modified by admitting the idea, that creating by delegated power, i.e. 
(so to speak) as architect only, is meant; or, are these texts to be 
understood in their highest sense, viz. in the sense of ascribing to Christ 
or the Logos original authorship, creating in the highest sense ? 

To prepare the way for an answer to this question, we must make 
inquiry respecting a second class of texts, such as those which I shall 
now subjoin. 

In Heb. i. 2, the writer asserts, that Gon made all things BY HIS 
Son; and in Eph. ni. 9, r@ [Ged] r& wavra Kricavre bie Inaot Xprorod. 


HEBREWS f. 2. 535 


Gop created all things BY JEsSus CurRisT. The latter clause, dia 
I, Xousrov, is indeed wanting in some Codices of good estimation, and is 
rejected by Griesbach from the text. But Knapp and Tittmann have 
inserted it, and the weight of authority seems to favour the admission of 
it. That the sentiment is not without a parallel, is clear from Heb. i. 2. 

In these two cases, then, the assertion of the apostle is, that Gop 
made all things BY his Son, or, BY Jesus Christ. 

Are these expressions, now, to be interpreted in such a way, as to 
qualify all the first class of expressions ascribing creatorship to Christ, 
so that they must be understood as asserting nothing more, than that he 
performed an instrumental or ministerial work only, and did not act as 
original author in bringing the universe into being? This is the simple 
question before us, divested of all extraneous constructions put upon 
either class of texts by opinions previously formed, or views adopted in 
consequence of reasoning a priori. 

Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is evident that 
nothing of importance can depend, either in respect to Heb. i. 2, or 
Eph. ii. 9, on the word da. It has often been asserted, that this pre- 
position is employed, before the genitive case, only to designate a 
secondary or instrumental cause. But this is altogether incorrect, both 
in respect to sacred and classical usage; as even the common Lexicons 
of the New Testament will shew. The cause, whether principal or in- 
strumental, may be, and often is, designated by c.a before the genitive. 

Av ov, then, might designate (by itself considered) the principal 
cause or original author of the worlds. This expression, however, does 
not involve the nodus of the difficulty, in the case before us. The 
assertion is not here, that all things were made BY the Son, but that 
GOD made all things BY him. In what manner, now, ought we to 
interpret this ? 

How the most noted commentators of the Greek church understood 
this difficult passage, is worth a serious inquiry. Chrysostom, in ex- 
plaining it, says, “‘ As the Father judgeth no one, but is said to judge 
by his Son, because he hath begotten him who is judge; so also he is 
said dnpuoupyety be abrov dre Onpuovpyov avréy éyévynoe, to create by him, 
because he hath begotten him who is the Creator.” He then proceeds, 
“* Et yap abrot airioc 6 marip, ToNXP paddov tov Ov adrod VEyevynpevwr, 
Jor of the Father is the cause of him, much more of the things made by 
him.” Hom. I. in Epist. ad Heb. p. 15. Vol. XII. Ed. Montfaucon. 
To the same purpose, Theophylact: “ éede 6€ airwe 6 mario TOU viow 


536 EXCURSUS I. 


eikOTwe Kal TOY Um abrov yevouérwy, seeing the Father is the cause of the 
Son, he must surely be of the things made by him.” Comm. in Heb. 
Tom. II. p. 650. edit. Venet. 1755. Here, also, the generation of the 
Divine substance of the Son is asserted, and the appeal is made to this 
doctrine as solving the difficulty of our text. But as the idea of self- 
existence, existence uncaused, and independence, enters essentially into 
all our conceptions respecting a nature truly Divine, and is a sine qua 
non in all our apprehensions of a Creator, it is difficult for us to concede 
that the Father can be the cause (airwc) of the Son in his Divine nature, 
without, of course, admitting, that the Son, as Divine, must be a de- 
pendent being, a detrepoc Oede only, as many have called him. The 
explanation of these fathers, (who accord with most of the ancient 
ecclesiastical writers,) seems, then, only to remove one difficulty, by 
bringing forward another still greater. This explanation also is forced 
upon the text. The writer of our epistle does not say, nor intimate, 
that ‘‘ God created all things by his Son, inasmuch as he is the cause 
(airtoc apxi; as Chrysostom calls him) of the Son.’ Can it be proper 
to force on the sacred writer a mode of metaphysical explanation, drawn 
from the philosophy of later ages, and foreign to the simplicity of the 
Scriptures ¢ 

In modern times, the mode of explaining our text is founded on what 
the systems of theology denominate ‘‘ subordination in respect to the 
persons of the Godhead.” Thus Owen, on Heb. i. 2, says, ‘“‘ The joint- 
working of the Father and Son doth not infer any other subordination 
but that of subsistence and order ;” he means the hypostatical subordi- 
nation of persons, or order of their existence in the Godhead. The 
amount of the explanation adopted by him and many others is, if I 
rightly understand it, that God the Father, in the order of subsistence 
(not of time) preceding the Son, did by the Son create the worlds. 
But whether this explanation renders the text any more zntelligzble, 
may perhaps be well doubted. Especially so, as Owen, on the same 
passage says, ‘‘The same individual creating act, is the work of the 
Father and the Son ; whose power and wisdom being one and the same 
undivided, so also are the works which proceed outwardly from them.” 
But if the power and wisdom of the Father and Son are not only oze, 
but the same UNDIVIDED; on what, it may be asked, is founded the 
evidence, that a sUBORDINATION of subsistence and order exists in 
the Godhead ? If the attributes of the Godhead are one and the SAME 
undivided, how can we come at the evidence of a physical or metaphy- 


HEBREWS 1. 2. San 


sical SUBORDINATION of subsistence or hypotheses? Can such a 
subordination of subsistence be in any way known to us, except through 
the medium of the Divine attributes? But these are affirmed to be 
one and the same undivided. Are we able then to show what the 
distinction in divine essence is; or to define the mode in which the 
metaphysical essence of the uncreated Bewng exists! Where is the 
passage of Scripture which does this? I am aware that an appeal is 
here made to those texts which mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
in connexion ; and particularly to the order in which they are men- 
tioned. But of these texts there are only three. The first is in Matt. 
xxvill. 19, where the order just presented is observed. The second is 
in 2 Cor. xii. 13, where the Lord Jesus Christ is placed first. The 
third is in John v. 7; a text, which if not proved to be spurious, is at 
least thrown into a state so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would 
at present think of appealing to it as authority. 

Is then, we may well ask, the order of subsistence or hypostasis, 
(which is so much insisted on, and so often appealed to by the schoolmen,) 
a doctrine taught by the sacred writers? Or, rather, is it not one of 
the inventions of metaphysical philosophy, in order to remove apparent 
difficulties in the sacred text? Can any one point out the text of 
Scripture, in which God is presented in a physical or metaphysical 
manner, so that his essence or mode of subsistence, in itself considered, 
is offered to our consideration? If not—and if God, only in his rela- 
tions to us, and the creation around us, God as developed by his attri- 
butes, and not as he is wn himself, or considered in respect to his inter- 
nal essence, be revealed to us in the Bible—why not contented with 
what the Scriptures have taught, without forcing sentiments upon the 
sacred writers which have been excogitated only by metaphysicians of 
later days ? 

Owen himself, after going through a protracted consideration of our 
text, with that good sense and humility for which he was so con- 
spicuous, adds, “It is not for us to inquire much into or after the 
reason of this economy and dispensation. We cannot by searching 
find out God, we cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection.” He 

_means, “‘ We cannot find out the economy of God’s creating the worlds 
by his Son, and the doctrine of subordination which is implicated in 
this.” Happy would it have been for the interest of humble and 
candid inquirers, had this sentiment produced its proper influence over 


538 EXCURSUS I. 


all the writings of Owen himself, and of many other eminent and excel- 
lent men! 

Will not most sober and intelligent inquirers, of the present day, 
agree in saying, thatthe nature and modus of the distinction in the 
Godhead is not an object of revelation, and that it is BEYOND the 
boundaries of human knowledge? Let those, now, who write or teach 
respecting this momentous and awful subject, act consistently with such 
an avowal, and very much of the perplexity, which is still occasioned by 
incautious assertions in regard to it, will be saved. 

The ground which Owen and so many others have taken, to explain 
the phrase in Heb. i. 2, is not satisfactory, because it is built on the 
assumption, that we know that which is beyond the boundaries of human 
knowledge, and which, after much examination, I am compelled to 
believe is not revealed in the Scriptures. 

The difficulty of our text, then, still remains. It would be presump- 
tion in me to promise a solution of it that will be satisfactory. But 
as the subject is so deeply interesting to all sincere and humble 
inquirers after the simple meaning of the sacred writers, I will venture 
to suggest a few considerations for reflection. 

Words are the signs of ideas. Words are human, i. e. they belong 
to men; they are employed by them; and employed to designate, of 
course, the ideas which men have in their own minds. All these ideas 
are derived from sensation, reflection, or consciousness. The percep- 
tible objects without us, and the mental phenomena within us, are all 
the objects from which we can derive ideas through the medium of 
observation. Reflection, or reasoning upon the knowledge derived from 
these, may lead us to many new ideas; all of which, however, have 
their basis in the perceptions of objects external or internal. 


As words are merely arbitrary signs of ideas, so, when employed in — 


their original sense, they can never signify more than the things for 
which they stand. But words may be employed figuratively. When 
we come, by reasoning or reflection, to the knowledge and belief that 
there exists a Being who created the world; who is himself uncreated, 
eternal, and immutable ; who is not the object of perception by any 
of our senses; and for the description of whom, none of the words of 
our language were originally formed; we are then obliged to apply 
to the description of this Being, words already in existence. But these 
words, it is plain, must in such a case be used nearly always in a sense 


EE re 


HEBREWS I. 2. 539 


more or less qualified, and differing from their original and literal sense. 
Even in expressing our ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme 
Being, where there is a particular resemblance between him and man 
formed in his image, we do not apply to the Divinity the most common 
words, in exactly the same sense as we do to men. When we say, 
he is wise, we do not mean that he acquired his wisdom, or possesses it, 
or exercises it, just in the manner that men do. We mean that there 
is, in his wisdom, something analogous to wisdom in men ; something 
which selects the best ends, and chooses the best means of accomplish- 
ing them. But we do not mean to imply that the acts of selecting and 
choosing in the Divinity are, in all respects, analogous to our own. 

We say, God is omnipresent. But we do not mean that he is present 
every where, in the same manner as human beings are present at any 
particular place. We do not mean that actual physical presence of 
body, or of substance, is necessary to his being present; in other words, 
we do not mean, that he is physically diffused through the universe. 
We mean, that at the same instant, he can act, and does act, any where, 
or every where. Here is some analogy between him and us. We must 
be physically present in order to act; and we say, therefore, that where 
he acts, he is present. This is true in some sense; but as to manner, 
how exceedingly different is his being present from our own! 

We say, God is mighty. But when we speak of might in him, we do 
not associate with it the idea of firm sinew, of vigorous muscle, of robust 
body, of mature age, of perfect health; all of which enter into our 
apprehensions of consummate strength in man. We content ourselves 
with one simple point of analogy. God has power to do whatever he 
desires to do; or, he is almighty. In this respect his might or strength 
is like that in men; it is power to accomplish the objects which strength 
or might is adapted to accomplish. But the might of the Deity infinitely 
excels that of men in degree. Here is one point of dissimilarity. It 
depends, too, on very different causes for its exercise. Here is another. 
But still, we speak of power in God, as frequently as we do of power in 
men. The imperfection of language obliges us to make use of words in 
this way. But who that has any reflection will say, that the words which 
we apply to God are used entirely in the same sense, which belongs tr 
them when they are applied to men ? 

In the same manner we might proceed in the consideration of 
every one of the Divine attributes, whether natural or moral. In regard 
to them all, we should find that there is only some one point of 


540 EXCURSUS I. 


analogy on which our assertion rests, when we apply human language to 
the description of God; and that the manner in which he possesses or 
exercises any of his attributes, physically considered, is utterly beyond 
the boundaries of human knowledge; and, indeed, that it was never meant 
to be an object of assertion, by any intelligent man who makes assertions 
in regard to the Supreme Being. 

If all this is well understood, we are now prepared to advance a step 
farther, and see our way clear. Nothing can be more evident, (I might 
say, self-evident,) than that the eternal, uncreated, uncaused, inde- 
pendent, infinite, and self-existent God, must, as to his mode of essence 
and existence, be unlike to temporary, created, caused, dependent, finite 
beings, with a derived existence. The very fact that God is as he has 
been just described, and man as he has been represented, necessarily 
forces this conviction upon us. Nothing can be plainer, then, than that 
all human language, formed at first merely to express human conceptions 
of finite and created objects, must in itself be altogether incompetent 
fully to describe the Divinity. Nor could any language formed by 
created beings be adequate to this purpose; for the plain reason, that 
no finite being could ever have a fud/ conception of the infinite and 
uncreated Being. 

All our language, then, when used to describe God, must be con- 
sidered rather as analogical only, than as capable of being simply 
applied to him in its usual sense. Any description made by it, is only 
an approximation towards a full description of what is divine. This has 
been shown above. And could this be remembered and rightly applied, 
in all our discussions respecting the nature of the Supreme Being, it 
would save much of the difficulty and darkness which now embarrass 
this great subject. 

No assertion, indeed, can be made respecting God, which, if its lan- 
guage be understood and applied altogether in the same sense in which 
it is understood and applied when made of man, will not lead to contra- 
diction or absurdity. This is evident from such plain cases as those 
already presented; viz. God is wise; God is omnipresent; God is 
mighty. If there is still any doubt here, take another case. God has 
knowledge. This is certainly true. But with us, knowledge can be 
possessed only through the medium of corporeal organs of sensation ; 
it is acquired successively ; in time; within a limited space; by the aid 
of memory, of comparison, of reasoning, of imagination; and when 
needed for use, it is summoned by recollection. When we say, “A man 


——— 


HEBREWS I. 2. 54] 


has knowledge,” we imply all these things by the use of these words. 
But if we say, ‘‘ God has knowledge,” do we mean to assert that he nas 
corporeal organs of sense; that he gradually acquires ideas; that, 
limited by time and space, he does this; that he makes the effort of 
charging the memory with it; the effort of comparing, of reasoning 
of imagination, of recollection, in any manner like ours? Whoever says 
this is an anthropomorphite indeed ; such an one, too, as is not to be 
often met with (I would fondly hope) in these days of better illumination 
respecting the exalted and spiritual nature of the Divinity. 

From these obvious considerations, we may now proceed to examine 
the language of the sacred writers, in regard to the difficult point which 
suggested the subject of this Excursus. Two things seem to be equally 
the object of assertion in the holy Scriptures. The first, that there is 
but one God; the second, that the Logos, or higher nature which dwelt 
in Christ, is truly divine, or is truly God. Of the first, it would be 
superfluous to produce proofs here. The Old Testament is full of them; 
and the New as distinctly recognizes the same doctrine; see John 
xvii. 3. 1 Cor. vii. 4. 6.1 John v. 20. Luke xviii. 19. Matt. xix. 17. 
A formal proof of the second point would be out of place in an exegesis 
designed only for the explanation of a particular phrase. It must 
suffice merely to advert to Johni. 1. Rom. ix. 5, Tit. ii. 13. 1 John v.20: 
the two former instances of which are so express, that no critical inge- 
nuity can avoid the application of the term God to Christ; the third, 
when examined by the principles of grammar and of the usus loguendi 
of the New Testament, is scarcely less certain; and the fourth has never 
yet been satisfactorily explained away. 

But how can the Logos be truly God, and yet be with God, and be 
the agent BY WHICH God made the worlds? Here lies, it must be con- 
fessed, the very essence of all the difficulty which embarrasses so many 
minds; and on this point we must now venture to dwell with some 
particularity. 

In the first place, our minds are embarrassed with the difficulty which 
such a statement respecting the Logos makes, in regard to the Divine 
unity. Let us see if the source of this embarrassment cannot be 
distinctly pointed out. 

Trinitarians have been accustomed, for many centuries, to characterize 
the distinction in the Godhead by the word person. Whether this word 
was well ce ill chosen, it is not my present object to inquire. Thus 
much is certain: many, perhaps even the greater part of men in Chris- 


542 EXCURSUS I. 


tian lands, have incautiously attached to this word, when used in respect 
to the Godhead, a sense nearly (if not quite) the same, as they attach to 
it in common usage. Not a few theologians and critics have, indeed, 
protested against such an application of the word ; and some of those, 
who have been most eminent for their stedfast adherence to the belief 
that the Saviour possesses a nature truly Divine, have raised their voice 
high against such an application of it; but, unfortunately for the cause 
of truth, this voice has been listened to only by some of those who were 
friendly to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Others, with different 
views, have commonly thought proper to pay no attention to such a 
protest, but to take advantage, in their efforts to oppose the doctrine of 
the Trinity, of the arguments which might be put into their possession, 
by taking the word person in its usual acceptation. 

If now we speak of the Logos as a person ; and of God the Father as 
a person; and attach to the word person the sense that is usual in 
common parlance; then it is certain, indeed, that the difficulty which 
lies in the way of supposing the Logos to be truly God, and yet consist- 
ently maintaining the Divine unity, is altogether insurmountable. 
‘‘ Person is an intelligent substance,” (if I may use the language of 
philosophy for the sake of definition.) ‘‘ Substance,” as defined by 
Baumgarten, a divine of the old school, of high orthodoxy, and of great 
metaphysical acuteness, “is that which can exist by itself, or unas- 
sociated with another thing ;” Substantia est cd, quod potest existere 
ita, ut ponatur extra alterum, Metaphys. 191. 36. 231—233. As 
defined by another logician and philosopher, famous for nice distinctions 
of definition, ‘‘ Substance is that which exists, or may be supposed to 
exist, although it is connected with nothing else;’ Substantia est id 
quod est, aut esse posse putatur, etiamsi nulli ali sit yunctum, Ulrich’s 
Inst. Log. et Metaphys. § 316. To apply the word person, then, in the 
sense which such definitions necessarily afford, to the distinctions in the 
Godhead, inevitably leads to Tritheism, and, of course, to a virtual 
rejection of the Divine unity. We may say, in words, that we believe 
God is one, although we assert that there are three persons in the God- 
head, as just defined; but nothing is plainer, than that in such a case 
we believe merely in a specific unity, not in a numerical one. Specific 
unity, however, might admit three thousand or three million divine 
beings, and yet consistently maintain that there is but one God ; that is, 
it might do so, provided we allow the advocates of it that there is a 
yévog Ostoy, genus divinum, or genus of divinities. Human nature, for 


HEBREWS 1. 2. v43 


example, is one; there 1s bué one nature of man; yet the individuals of 
this genus are without number. That such is not the unity which the 
Scriptures assert of the Godhead, I need not stop to prove. 

He who consistently holds the numerical unity of the Godhead, must, 
beyond all doubt, protest against the application of the word person to 
designate the distinctions of the Divine nature, if that word is to be 
taken in its logical or metaphysical sense. For, however one may hold 
to words and forms of expression, it is plain, that while he makes such 
an application of the word person to the Godhead, he in fact admits 
Tritheism, although he may be far from any design or any consciousness 
of doing so. 

The views whick have now been presented, may serve to explain the 
reason why many find it so difficult, or (as they think it) impossible, to 
admit the true divinity of the Logos. ‘ How can he,” say they, “ be 
the second person in the Godhead, and yet be one with the first? How 
can he be with God, and yet be God himself?” 

And truly, it must be confessed, that this cannot be, provided the 
words in question are to be construed altogether more humano, i. e. in 
their logical, common, usual acceptation. But is it analogous, is it 
proper, to construe them thus? Does it develop a spirit of candid and 
fair inquiry, to insist that these terms shall be construed altogether 
according to their common acceptation, when there is not, as we have 
seen above, a single term significant of a Divine attribute, which we ever 
construe in such a manner ? 

If this be correct, (and I may venture to say it cannot be reasonably 
disputed,) then I see no very urgent reason why the use of the word 
person, in order to designate a distinction in the Godhead, should be 
rejected. It is true, it is not a word which is applied by the Scriptures 
to the Godhead, (for izéaracrc, in Heb. i. 3, does not mean person ;) it 
is also true, that many well-meaning individuals have been misled by it 
in regard to their conceptions respecting the Deity, and that those who 
reject the doctrine of the Trinity have made great use of this word in 
order to render the sentiments of Trinitarians obnoxious; so that one 
might almost wish the word had never been introduced into ecclesiastical 
usage. But when the matter is examined to the bottom, it will be found 
that objections of a similar nature might be urged against the application 
of any anthropopathic expressions to God. The simple and the untaught 
may be easily misled by them, and often are so. How many, for 
example, believe that God is really angry, repents, &c., more humano, 


544 EXCURSUS I. 


because such expressions are found in the Scriptures? Shall all such 
expressions be laid aside, because they are misunderstood or perverted ? 
And if so, where shall we stop? for we have seen, that all language 
which is used in order to describe God, must be taken, of course and by 
necessity, in a qualified sense. The abuse of a thing is no valid argu- 
ment against the wse of it. Those, then, who believe in the existence of 
a real distinction in the Godhead, in case they are careful to protest 
against the literal application of the word person to designate this, may 
still continue to employ the word, if they think best ; for it is exceedingly 
difficult (as all will confess who have thoroughly studied this subject) to 
exchange it for a better one, or for one that will so well correspond with 
the representations of the Bible in regard to such a distinction, Cer- 
tainly no term can be substituted. for it, which will not, in like manner, 
be obnoxious to more or less objections. 

If those who reject all distinction in the Godhead will persevere still in 
maintaining, that to say there are three persons in the Godhead neces- 
sarily involves the doctrine of Tritheism ; and if they will thus continue, 
at all events, to explain the word person according to its literal and 
common meaning, and to charge upon those who believe in the doctrine 
of the Trinity the absurd consequences derivable from this; then they 
may, indeed, display their strength of attachment to their own views, 
and perhaps their skill in logomachy; but where is that candour and 
fairness toward those who differ from them, which becomes all who are 
seeking in earnest to know the simple doctrines of the Scriptures ? 

Suppose now, when one says, God possesses knowledge, he should be 
asked in the tone of reproof, “« What! Do you mean to assert that God 
has physical organs of perception; that he studies; that he charges his 
memory with ideas; that he compares; that he deduces conclusions ; 
that he summons them up by the effort of recollection when he needs 
them? Men do all this, who have knowledge ; but can all this be pre- 
dicated of God?” Would any considerate man think these questions 
very reasonable ones ; or feel himself compelled by them to abandon his 
assertion, ‘‘ that God has knowledge ?” 

Apply, now, the principle concerned in this case, to the idiom in 
question. The apostle John says, that the Logos was with God; was 
with him in the beginning ; and repeats this asseveration, John i. 1, 2. 
Christ says of himself, that he was with the Father, and partook of his 
glory, before the world had an existence, John xvii. 5. In another 
place, John asserts, that the Son was with the Father, 1 Johni, 2; and the 


HEBREWS I. 2. $45 


Saviour speaks of the Father, as loving him before the foundation of the 
world, John xvii. 24. He declares, that he came out from the Father, 
when he came into the world, John xvi. 28. In accordance with this 
idiom, Paul says, that God created all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. iti.9; 
and that he made the worlds by his Son, Heb. i. 2. Now, if such texts 
are to be considered as altogether zsulated, and the principles of 
analogy in other cases are not to be applied to the language which they 
exhibit, then the conclusion, that Christ, or the Logos, is a being wholly 
distinct from God the Father, is clear and inevitable. But are these texts 
to be construed in an absolute, zsolated sense, and without any reference 
at all to others, which relate to the same connexion between Father and 
Son? Certainly not, if we follow the analogy of exegesis in all other 
cases. When John says, that the Logos was with God, he tells us, at 
the very same time, as if to guard us against erroneously concluding that 
he is a distinct, and separate, and different substance, that he was God. 
When the Saviour spake of the glory which he had with the Father 
before the world was, he had just been addressing the Father as the only 
true God, John xvii. 5. 3: so that no one could rationally suppose him 
to assert the existence of more than one true God. If Paul tells us that 
God created all things by Jesus Christ, and that he made the worlds by 
his Son, he also tells us, that Christ is God over all, and blessed for 
ever, Rom. ix. 5; and that he is the eternal and immutable Creator of 
the heavens and the earth, Heb. i. 10—12. Christ tells us, that he who 
hath seen him hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9; that he is in the 
Father, and the Father in him, ver. 10; and that all which the Father 
hath is his, ch. xvi. 15. Now, whatever diversity between the Father 
and Son the first class of texts above quoted may seem to imply, it is 
plain that it is not of such a nature as to destroy the unity of the God- 
head. Whatever the distinction in the Godhead may be, it is not that 
which makes plurality ; it is not that which makes personality, in a 
logical, or merely human sense. But can we say what it is? Plainly 
not. A positive description is nowhere given in Scripture; and surely 
it would ill become us to pretend that we understand, without revelation, 
the uncreated substance, and modus existendi of the Godhead. All 
that we can understand by such expressions as the Logos being with 
God, becoming flesh and dwelling among us, and God’s making the 
worlds by him, is, that there is a distinction in the Godhead, of some 
kind, which amounts to more than merely the different modes or ways 
in which the Divinity discloses himself to us. It is something which is 
2N 


546 EXCURSUS If. : 


not merely nominal or logical ; which is not to be predicated merely of 
the external relations of the Godhead. It is something which renders it 
possible to affirm, in some sense or other, analogous to the usual mean- 
ing of the words, that the Son was with God, that God created the 
world by him, that he became incarnate, &c.; all which cannot be 
predicated, in the same sense, of the Father. Yet all this must be 
true, in such a modified sense as does not infringe on the real unity 
of God. ; 

Who, now, will undertake to decide what metaphysical distinctions or 
relations there may be, in the uncreated substance of the eternal God ; 
and what are consistent, and what not consistent, with his unity ? None, 
we may believe, but those who are either presumptuous, or destitute of 
cool and sober reflection. But although the nature of the distinction 
in the Godhead be truly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, 
(as plainly it is,) yet the fact, that there is a distinction of some kind or 
other, may be revealed. Indeed, that it is revealed, seems to be a neces- 
sary consequence of allowing the two classes of texts above quoted to be 
true, and to modify each other. On the one hand, diséinetion is not to 
be so held or asserted, as to infringe upon wnity ; and on the other, 
unity is not to be so held or asserted as to preclude the possibility of any 
distinction. Who has found out the Almighty unto perfection? Are 
not all analogies from created, finite, temporal objects, utterly incom- 
petent to convey adequate ideas of the infinite and uncreated God ? 
Must they not from their very nature be so? Yet men will insist on 
applying ail the analogy, which language imports, to God, in the same 
way as to themselves. We always conceive, for example, of different 
beings having a finite nature, as separated by space, as existing in time, 
and as having their own peculiar properties. When, therefore, we read 
of the Logos being with God, we very easily associate with this expression 
the analogy of one human being in company with another, or of some 
created thing associated with another that is a separate one. Then we 
are ready to ask, How can the Logos be God? One cannot, indeed, 
show that he is so, if we will insist that all language is to be applied to 
him, simply according to the common application of it to human objects. 
But is such an application to be made? Can it be? John says, he is 
God; and Paul says, he is God. over all. Then human language, of 
course, can only approximate to a description of him; the literal and 
full application of it, in designating his relations to the Godhead, 1s out 
of all question. Only very inadequate views of this subject, or the 


HEBREWS I. 2. 047 


spirit of party, or that of disputation, can maintain the propriety of such 
an application. 

We may come then to the conclusion, that when the apostle Paul 
asserts that God made the worlds by his Son, there is nothing in reality 
more difficult in this expression, than there is in those expressions which 
are found in the Gospel and first Epistle of John. Whatever may be the 
economy of the Godhead to which Paul refers, it is not one which 
denies, or virtually takes away, either the unity of the same, or the 
supreme creatorship (so to speak) of the Son; for this he most fully 
asserts in Heb. i. 10O—12. 

We have seen, by the passages above cited, that the apostles, John 
and Paul, accord in their views both with respect to the distinction and 
the unity of the Godhead, and to the divinity of the Saviour. As they 
held these truths in such a manner that they harmonized with each 
other, so ought we to do; and consequently we should not give such an 
explanation to the one, as to destroy the other. In a particular manner, 
we ought to be guarded against making any assertions or definitions 
which are built on the assumption, that we know in what the distinctions 
of the Godhead consist. Some of the efforts of the school-divines, on 
this awful subject, are not only contradictory to each other, but their 
views are inconsistent with the true nature of a Divine and self-existent 
Creator, as well as repulsive to the feelings of a cautious, impartial 
inquirer, who seeks after ideas of things, and not after mere words. 

The suggestions now made, respecting the necessity of feeling that. all 
our language when applied to describe the Deity must be restricted to a 
modified sense, are strengthened, by an examination of the descriptions 
in general of God, as given in the Bible by the sacred writers. They 
represent him, for example, as angry; as repenting; as being grieved at 
the heart; as laughing at the efforts of the wicked; as mocking at their 
calamities ; as rejoicing ; as weeping ; as avenging himself; as possessing 
eyes, hands, feet, and all the parts of the human body; as descending 
and conversing with men; as appearing to Abraham, Moses, and many 
others; as ascending; as riding in the whirlwind and the storm; as 
walking on the sea; as shooting with a bow and arrows; as whetting his 
glittering sword, and bathing it in blood; as clothed with the habili- 
ments of a warrior, or in those of royal magnificence; in a word, as 
possessed of all the sympathies, and exhibiting all the phenomena, of a 
man. The most unpractised reader of the Bible knows this is true, and 
that, more or less of it, is to be found on nearly every page of it. Yet 

2N 2 


548 EXCURSUS I, 


who, that has any rational views of the true spiritual nature of God, 
ever supposes that any part of all this language is to be applied merely 
in its primary and literal sense to God? Yet, in every case of this 
nature, there is some real meaning in the language employed by the 
sacred writers. There is some point of analogy, between the literal 
meaning of the language as applied to men, and the qualified meaning 
of it as applied to God. When God is said to repent, the meaning is, 
that he acts in a manner analogous to that in which men act when they 
repent, i.e. he changes the course which he was pursuing. When God 
is said to whet the glittering sword, to bend his bow, and to take hold 
on vengeance, then he does that which is like what men do to their 
enemies, i.e. he punishes, he inflicts distress, he makes retribution for 
crimes, In all these and such like cases, the manner in which the 
Divine Being acts is not intended to be described ; but the fact that he 
does act, is what is asserted by the use of such language as has just 
been mentioned. se ; 

No one can justly say, then, that there is no real meaning in such 
language when applied to God, unless it is taken in its primary and 
literal sense. Such an affirmation would betray profound ignorance of 
the nature of language, as used in a qualified sense, and also of the true 
character of God. For if all such language respecting him is indeed 
to be léterally construed, then have the Scriptures cast no additional 
light on the spiritual nature of God, and he is still to be regarded, as 
the heathen represented him, viz. as one altogether lke ourselves. 

If it should be thought, that the class of expressions which are men- 
tioned in the two preceding paragraphs, are essentially different from 
those before considered, viz. such as God knows, God is mighty, &c. 3; 
an examination of the whole matter will convince any one of his mistake. 
It is true, that the former class of expressions are more obviously figu- 
rative. We at once perceive, that, as God is not flesh and blood, they 
cannot be literally applied to him ; i. e. we abstract from these expres- 
sions whatever pertains to modus, whatever is borrowed from our earthly 
material structure. But is it not equally true, that whatever pertains to 
modus is, in the other case, to be in the same manner abstracted ? For 
example, when God is said to know, does it any more imply the human 
modus of knowing, than it implies the human modus of aeting, when 
he is said to lift up his arm in order to smite an offender? Most clearly 
not. The truth is, that, when sifted to the bottom, it will be found there 
is no essential difference as to the qualified nature of the language in 


HEBREWS 1.2. 549 


beth cases. In both, you abstract the modus, before you apply it ta 
God. In the one case, indeed, the metaphor is taken from our corporeal 
parts ; in the other, from our mental powers; but this makes no differ- 
ence in respect to the*thing itself, except that in the former case the 
language is more obviously and strikingly to be qualified, than in the 
latter. 

If, then, such expressions as those which have been considered, and 
all others which designate the natural or moral attributes of God, are, 
and must be, understood in a modified sense ; then why is not the asser- 
tion that the Logos was wth God to be understood in a similar way ? 
The manner in which one created substance, as contemplated by us, 1s 
with another can surely afford no perfect analogy to explain the man- 
ner, in which the self-existent, the uncreated Logos is with God. And 
yet the most specious of all the objections to the true divinity of the 
Logos, are grounded on the full and /2teral application to him of such 
language. 

One word, with respect to the unety itself of the Godhead. Is not 
this term, as well as all the others applied to the Divinity, to be taken 
in a modified sense? If any one will, for a mement, put aside the veil 
of words, and come to the simple contemplation of things, he will pro- 
bably find himself much less able to tell what unity in the Godhead is, 
than he suspected. In the substances around us, proximity of parts 
united by some common influence, or subserviency to some common 
purpose, is essential to our idea of unity. A tree is one, because its 
_ several parts are intimately connected, are under an influence common 
to all, and are subservient to a common purpose, i. e. of producing fruit, 
or foliage. Other trees, indeed, of the like kind, are under the like 
influence, and subserve the like purpose; but the want of an intimate 
proximity of parts to the tree in question, is the ground why they are 
not one with it. One man, in distinction from many, consists of a cor- 
poreal frame thus intimately connected, and animated by an intelligent 
spirit. Every thing that has material parts is numerically one, only by 
an intimate conjunction of those parts. 

But when we apply the term unity to spirit, and ask, What is that in 
which the unity of spirit consists? it will be found more easy to ask, 
than to answer the question. A spirit we do not suppose to have parts ; 
certainly not, in such a sense as matter has, i, e. it is not divisible. 
God has no parts; he is a spirit. Proximity of parts, then, does not 
constitute his unity. Nor have we, nor can we haye, any proof that 


550 EXCURSUS I. 


homogeneousness, or simplicity of essence or substance, constitutes his 
unity. For, in the first place, we have no distinct idea of what the 
essence or substance (if I may be allowed the expression) of the Godhead 
consists; and, of course, we cannot predicate physical homogeneousness 
or simplicity of that, respecting which we have no distinet idea. In the 
second place, as the most insignificant portion of matter has never yet, 
so far as we know, received an ultimate analysis from the highest efforts 
of chemical philosophy, so that any one can venture to affirm what its 
simple substance is, and confidently declare that it is homogeneous, and 
one only, in regard to its component elements; will any one venture to 
say, that he has analyzed the Divine substance, (I speak it with rever- 
ence,) so as to be able, with certainty, to predicate physical homogeneous 
simplicity and unity, of the elements which compose it? How is it 
possible for us to make affirmations about the nature of that substance, 
of which, by our own confession, we are altogether ignorant? A man 
who at the present day should do thus, in any other science than that 
of theology, would be regarded as a mere visionary, or as a bigoted 
enthusiast for the party to which he belonged. 

The qualities, then, of the substance or essence of the Godhead, or 
(to speak in other terms) the physical or metaphysical nature of the 
Deity, is that of which we are profoundly ignorant. We know there is 
one Omnipotence, one Omniscience, one Creator and Governor of the 
universe ; but do we know the internal relations and modifications of his 
substance? Confessedly not. How, then, can we with propriety reject 
the testimony of revelation, that the Logos is God, because of objections 
which our philosophy deduced from a priori reasoning may raise, in 
respect to the unity of the Divine substance; all of which objections, 
too, are deduced from analogies that are taken merely from material 
and corporeal things? Truly, if the nature of these objections be 
examined, and the whole matter sifted to the bottom, by putting mere 
words aside for a while, and looking at things, it will be found, that we 
have less reason to confide in such objections, than some are ready to 
imagine. 

The Christian, who holds that the Logos is truly divine, (and of 
course that he is self-existent, eternal, and independent,) holds to 
what Paul and John seem very plainly to assert; and he, who admits 
that there is a distinction in the Godhead, (the nature of which is not 
developed, but which is implied in such expressions as those in 
Heb. 1. 2, John i. 1, 2,) stands on scriptural ground, and on that too 


HEBREWS I. 2. 551 


which is proof against all assault. For how can it be proved, that 
there is no¢é a distinction in the Godhead, the nature of which we 
confessedly do not understand? If it be asked, How can it be proved 
there is one? The answer. is, by a revelation. If such a revelation 
has been made, (and the texts cited above, not to mention others, seem 
plainly to imply it,) then we are either bound to receive it, or to reject 
the authority of the sacred writers. Consistency must oblige us directly 
and fully to do the one or the other. 

As for all the illustrations attempted by divines, ancient and modern, 
of the physical nature of the distinctions in the Godhead, drawn from 
finite, material, created objects, the bare mention of them is enough to 
show, that they must be imminently exposed to error. Who can draw 
any perfect analogies between created and uncreated beings, in regard 
to their physical nature and properties? And all the terms, and 
names, and dogmas, which have resulted merely from such comparisons, 
may be rejected in a mass—salvd fide, et salvd ecclesid: and they 
ought to be rejected, if we would not expose the awful mystery of the 
doctrine in question to doubts, if not to rejection, by men who are 
not influenced in their opinions by tradition, nor by the authority of the 
schools. When the simple d2blical view of this subject is embraced, 
and the simple position of the sacred writers maintained, without 
adding to it any explanations or definitions merely of our own invention 
then may more unity of opinion on this subject be expected among: 
professed Christians; and then will truth be less exposed to assault, 
from those who reject it. 

We come, then, at the close of this protracted discussion, to the 
conclusion—that language, like that in Heb. i. 2, is subject to such 
modifications as other parts of the Scriptures and the nature of the 
case demand. In other words, we can rationally apply it to God and 
to Christ, only in a qualified sense, just as all other language must 
be applied to them, most obviously, in a qualified sense. Whatever 
depends on modus, must be abstracted. Facts are aimed at by the 
sacred writers, not the modus of them. 

The expression in our text, therefore, according to every just law of 
exegesis, must be so taken, as to accord with other assertions of the 
apostle and other inspired writers. But these do not permit us to 
attribute the act of creating to any but God himself, i. e. the supreme 
God. To this act the ultimate appeal is made by the sacred authors, 
in order to distinguish the supreme God from all that is called God 


§52 EXCURSUS {. 


in heaven or on earth: see Rom. i. 20. Ps. xix. 1. Acts xiv. 15. Isa, 
xl. 255926; ch. xlu. 5—8; xliii, 15; xliv. 23; xlv. 18;° xlvi. 9 
xlviil. 12, 13, &c, Now, is it possible for the human mind to appeal te 
any decisive evidence of supreme Divinity, unless the act of creation 
be such? The Deity can be known at all, only by the development 
of his attributes; and no development ever made, or (so far as we 
can see) none which can be made, is so highly and decisively charac- 
teristic of “ eternal power and godhead,” as the act of creation. So 
thought Paul, Rom. i. 20; and so, until the whole structure of my 
mind is changed, must I think. 

The being then who created the world, is God to me; and from the 
nature of my moral and mental constitution, he must be so. This is 
a point that admits of no explaining away. If, therefore, Christ cre- 
ated the world, he must be, what John asserts him to be, GOD; and 
what Paul asserts him to be, GOD OVER ALL. But in what sense 
God can be said to have created the world by Christ, i. e. what is the 
exact meaning of a phrase, which refers to an internal distinction, (as 
it would seem,) in the Divine nature, is beyond the reach of our con- 
ception, as to modus. Enough, that it has matter of fact for its ground, 
viz. that the Logos was truly Creator. Enough that creatorship is so 
spoken of in the Bible, that we are not at liberty to predicate it of any 
dependent being. This point fixed, (and if it be not, we have no 
decisive evidence on which we can rely, that Jehovah is God,) the 
sense of Heb. i. 2, and of other like passages, is to be understood in 
a qualified way, so as not to gainsay what is plain and certain. This 
is as much as can be said with safety; for the subject, to which such 
passages refer, is plainly one that, in most respects, is beyond the bound- 
aries of human knowledge. 

That the subject is not without difficulties, even in its scriptural 
position, is what every candid and unprejudiced man will be very ready 
to confess. But it is a noble remark of Garve, (on Cicero de Offic. 
Lib. I. p. 70,) “The better part of men do not, because they may 
discover a few difficulties which they cannot solve, regard the whole 
system of acknowledged truth as uncertain. They can be aware that 
there is some darkness mingled with light in their knowledge, without 
being terrified by the one, or blinded by the other.” 

The effort to explain every thing, to define every thing, has led to 
the unhappy consequence of introducing scholastic phraseology and 
definitions, in respect to every thing about the doctrine of the Trinity. 


HEBREWS I. 2, 553 


This not only bewilders many, but makes others believe that they have 
a knowledge of things because they can use abundance of technical 
words ; while the opposition of another class, who can detect the 
inconsistency and emptiness of these terms, is excited against the whole 
doctrine. The day, however, is coming, if not already arrived, when 
mere zames will be regarded by the church as of little worth, provided 
they do not convey intelligible ideas. For the good of the church, 
also, it may be hoped, that the time is very near, when men will learn 
to stop, in making their inquiries, wirn1n the boundaries of human 
knowledge, and nerther to assert nor deny that, about which they 2now 
nothing, and can know nothing. Well was it said by a very sensible 
writer, ‘“‘ He who will not undertake to explain what is incomprehen- 
sible, but will seek to know where the boundaries of this begin, and 
simply acknowledge them when and where he finds them ;—he does 
most to promote the genuine knowledge of truth by man.”* 


EXCURSUS II. 


. = \ & 
HEB. i. 2.—Av ov kal rove algvac éxoinas. 


Ir has been argued, that the expression, God made the worlds by his 
Son, necessarily contains an implication of eternal sonship, or eternal 
generation ; in other words, that Christ is the Son of God in his divine 
nature, and not simply considered as mediator. ‘* How,” it is asked, 
‘*could God make the worlds by his Son, if he had no son until four 
thousand years after the world was created 2?” The answer, however, is 
easy. How could ‘ God create all things by Jesus Christ?” And yet 
the apostle asserts that he did, in Eph. iii. 9. Is not Jesus Christ the 
appropriate name of the zxcarnate Logos? Of the Saviour as possess- 
ing our nature? How then could the world have been created by him ? 
The answer is, that in both cases, and in all similar cases, the words 
which describe the person are used as proper names, and thus designate 
the whole person, in whatever relation he is considered. The Logos, 
who created the world, was united with the human nature of Jesus— 
with the human nature of the Son of God, i. e. the Messiah. And as 
che names Jesus Christ and Son of God, are evidently terms used to 


* Jacobi, Gotting. Recens. St. 197, anno 1764, 


554 EXCURSUS III. 


describe the complex person of the Saviour; so it is altogether accord- 
ant with the usages of language to say, that ‘‘ God created the world 
by Jesus Christ,” or, ‘‘ by his Son ;” meaning, in either case, the Logos 
or higher nature united to Christ, or the Son. So we say, Abraham is 
dead, meaning, that part of him which is mortal is dead; Abraham is 
alive, meaning, that part which is immortal lives. We say, too, Abra- 
ham was born in Ur, of Chaldea; yet he did not receive this name 
until ninety-nine years after his birth there, for before this last period 
he was called Abram, not Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1.5. This is analogical 
with saying, God made the worlds by his Son ; although the Logos did 
not receive the name Son (except by prophetic anticipation) until he 
appeared in the flesh. Nothing is more common than to employ proper 
names, when once acquired, in order to designate the whole person, in 
all its different stages or modes of existence, without any reference to 
the time or manner of acquiring the proper name. At all events, if to 
say, that God made the worlds by his Son, necessarily proves that the 
Logos was then a Son when he made the worlds; the same reasoning 
will of course prove, that he was then Jesus and Christ also, i. e. a 
complex person having a human nature, because it is said, God created 
all things by Jesus Christ. 

In the same manner, the expression of our Saviour, What zf ye should 
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John vi. 62, would 
prove, if the reasoning on which we are animadverting be correct, that 
the Son oF MAN existed in heaven before he dwelt among men, i. e. 
that the Word made flesh did not assume this incarnate condition at the 
birth of Jesus, but possessed such a nature before, viz. while in the hea- 
venly world. Now, as neither fact justifies such a supposition, nor the 
usages of language demand it, so the doctrine of eternal Sonship can 
never be built upon a principle of reasoning which stands upon such 
a very insufficient basis. 


EXCURSUS III. 
HEB. i. 3.— Oc dy aravyacpa rij doéne Kat yapakTip Tice UVroardcEwe avrod. 


Wuar can be plainer, than that the description, in Heb. i. 3, neces- 
sarily applies to the zncarnate Logos, to the Son of God as disclosing in 
our nature the Father to the world of mankind? A multitude of ana- 


HEBREWS lt. 3. 555 


logous texts might easily be appealed to; but those quoted in the Com- 
mentary are sufficient. It is plainly the manifestation of God which the 
Son makes, that occasions the Son’s being described as aravyacpa and 
xapaxrijo; both of which imply, of course, what is visible and perceptible. 

But the Logos before the incarnation, while simply divine, was neither 
visible nor perceptible. Nor can we, with any propriety of language, 
speak of him in that state, in which he was simply the invisible God, as 
being only the image of God, or only the radiance of his splendour, or 
merely the likeness of his substance. ‘Yzdararte abrov, his substance, 1 
regard as equivalent to him, himself as he really is ; for this would seem 
to be the meaning of substance, in the case before us, and not the desig- 
nation of the physical or metaphysical nature of the Divine substance, 
which neither Christ nor any of the sacred writers have represented to 
us, and of which the Logos is not an image, since he is ONE with the 
Father. 

Others understand dzavyaopa in the sense of zmage, exact resem- 
blance, and ddfa as meaning, Divine majesty ; thus making drabyacpa 
ddéne and yapakrijp ric broordcewe avrod Synonymous. They appeal, by 
way of supporting this, to an expression in Philo, who calls the sanctuary 
of the temple ofoy aratyacpa roy ayiwy cat pipnpa rob apxeTirrov, an 
image (as they translate it) of the [heavenly] sanctuary, and a resem- 
blance of the archetype. But here azavyaspa may well be rendered 
radiance i. e. light emanated from the heavenly sanctuary, in reference to 
the heavenly splendour which appeared in the most holy place. Philo de 
Plantat. Noe, L. II. p.221. edit. Francofurt. The book of Wisdom calls wis- 
dom adratyacpa gwroc aidiov, kal cixova rig ayaSdrnrog abrov, the radiance 
of eternal light, and the image of [God’s] goodness ; which, although 
cited by them, is still less to the purpose of defending their opinion. 

‘ Ancient and modern commentators, who have construed these phrases 
as having respect to the divine nature and condition of the Son, have 
understood them as asserting an exact likeness between the Father and 
the Son, first in regard to attributes (ddéa,) and then in regard to sub- 
stance or essence (irdaracc.) I must, however, regard the phrase in 
question, as of the same nature, in respect to meaning, with the texts to 
which they have been compared in the Commentary ; and we may surely 
find, in the analogy of the scripture and in the nature of the imagery, 
reason to justify this view of them. But as the explanation referred to 
has been so long insisted on, and so often repeated, it deserves at least 
some particular attention. 


556 EXCURSUS III. 


Theodoret has best exhibited the mode of argument, which is used to 
defend the sentiment in question. ‘‘ Splendour (aravyacpa,)” says he, 
““ comes from fire. It has fire as its cause, but is inseparable from the 
fire; for fire and splendour proceed from the same source. If now it is 
possible, in respect to objects of sense, that one thing should be derived 
from another, and yet co-exist with that from which it is derived, you 
cannot doubt that God, the Logos, the only begotten Son of God, is 
begotten as a Son, and yet that he co-exists with him who begat him as 
Logos, which [Logos] is awatvyaopa ddénc. For the glory and the splen- 
dour have one common source. But the glory always existed; conse- 
quently the splendour. Fire and splendour are of the same nature; then 
the Son is of the same nature with the Father. Moreover, since the 
image of splendour abundantly shows the co-eternal and co-essential 
nature [of the Son with the Father,] it has afforded occasion for the blas- 
phemies of those who labour under the disease of Sabellius and Photinus. 
By another image, therefore, he [the apostle] refutes this blasphemy, 
since splendour does not exist in and of itself; for he adds, yapaxrip 
TiC UTOoTaGEwe avTov, K. Tr. X.”’ Theod. Comm. on Heb, i. 3. 

In a similar manner, Chrysostom and Theophylact argue, calling the 
Son ¢@¢ &k gwrocg. So the Nicene Fathers say, ‘‘ the Son is pac eK 
gwroc, Kai Osdc éx Oeov. Al! these plainly borrow their phraseology 
from the expression, adravyaopa rij¢ ddfn¢ abrov, which is referred by 
them to the Divine nature of Christ. 

But how incompetent any material objects are, to afford just ana- 
logies of the modus existendi of a Divine and uncreated nature, need 
not be again insisted on in this place. We might well ask, Is not the 
sun the cause of light? And does not the cause exist before the effect ? 
Again; Is light in all respects homoousian with the source of light, 
the luminary from which it springs? Is the radiance of the sun, the 
same thing as the sun itself ? 

Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Nyssen, moreover, assert, 
that the expression, xapaxrijp rij¢ vrocrdcewe abrov, necessarily implies 
an entire resemblance, in all respects, of the Son to the Father, with the 
exception of separate hypostasis; and this they maintain must be so, 
because the impression made by a stamp or die is exactly like the stamp 
or die itself. But it may be asked first, Whether the writer himself of 
our epistle makes, as these commentators do, the exception of hypostasis 
from the completeness of the resemblance asserted? Next, whether an 
impression is indeed, in all respects, like the die which made it? For 


HEBREWS I. 3. Don 


example; is the impression solid, or of the same material with the 
stamp; or does it possess the same physical attributes; or is it coeval 
with it? Such assertions, therefore, though they may be oratorical 
enough, and please the fancy of hearers or readers, vanish away before 
the tribunal of examination, and serve only to show the incompetence of 
any earthly analogies to give a true representation of the modus exis- 
tendi, or of the physical substance, of the Godhead. They also show 
the imprudence, nay, the danger, of employing such figures, in regard 
to a subject of so awful a nature. 

There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully 
examines, that the Nicene fathers and the Greek commentators, one and 
all, held that Christ as to his Divine nature was derived from the 
Father. So the Nicene creed, Oed¢ é« Oeod, dwe EK gwroc. So Chrysos- 
tom, commenting on the phrase in Heb. i. 13, ca3ou ex cekioy pov, 
affirms, that ‘‘ the apostle says this for no other reason, than that you 
may not suppose the Son to be avapyxoy cai avaireor,” i.e. sine principio 
et sine causd; most evidently in the very spirit of the Nicene creed. 
Yet we may ask the question—we cannot help asking it, Is then the 
Son, who is God over all and blessed for ever—is he, in his DIVINE 
nature, derived and dependent? Has he, as very God, an airia and an 
cox ? And is it possible for us, to make the idea of true and proper 
divinity harmonize with that of derivation, and consequent dependence ? 
No; it is not. The spiritual views of the nature of God, which are now 
generally entertained by enlightened men, forbid this; in fact, they 
render it absolutely impossible. But not so in the days of the Nicene 
council, and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in the 
Divine nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain; but that their 
views of what is necessary to constitute a rational and defensible idea of 
a nature truly Divine, were correct, is what no one, I think, who has 
read their writings and judged for himself, will now venture to maintain. 
Their views of the Divine nature were built on the metaphysical philo- 
sophy of their day; but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as 
correct ; nor is it indeed possible, now, for our minds to admit it. 





EXCURSUS IV. 
HEB. i. 3.—Exadicev év deh rife peyadocvrne. 


To sit at the right hand of one on a throne, appears to have two 
meanings, both in profane and sacred usage. 


558 EXCURSUS IV. 


1. It denotes honour, friendship, peculiar approbation, a reward 
bestowed on any one. Thus Solomon, when on his throne, directed 
Bathsheba his mother to sit at his right hand, 1 Kings ii. 19. Thus, in 
Ps. xlv. 9, the queen is represented as taking her place at the right 
hand of the king her husband. The mother of James and John requests 
of Jesus, that her two sons may sit, one on his right hand and the 
other on his left, during his reign, (év rj Paowsig cov, Matt. xx. 
20—23; compare Mark x. 36—40,) i. e. that they may occupy the 
highest places of honour under him as king. In other passages, 
Christ promises his disciples that they shall have thrones, in the world 
of glory, Matt. xix. 28; nay, that they shall sit down with him on his 
throne, even as he sits down with his Father on his throne, Rev. tii. 21. 
So Christians are said to have kingdom given to them, Rev. i. 6; they 
are a kingly priesthood, 1 Pet. ii.9; they reign with Christ, or in 
life, 2 Tim. ii, 12. Rom.v.17. Jamesii. 5. Matt. xxv. 34. Rev. 
vy. 10. In all these and the like cases, honour, reward, an exalted state 
of happiness or glory, is represented by such expressions ; but not actual 
participation in the supreme government of the universe. 

2. To sit at the right hand of one enthroned, or to sit on a throne 
with one, also denotes participation of command, authority, or dignity. 
So the heathen often employed the phrase: e. g. Pindar represents 
Minerva as dekiay xara emp Tov marpoc KadeLopevny, sitting at the 
right hand of her father [Jove]; which Horace explains by her 
occupying proximos Jovi honores. Pind. Fragm. p. 50. ed. Schneider, 
Hor. Od. I. 12,19. So Callimachus says of Apollo, that ‘he will 
honour the quoir who shall sing what is pleasant to him; since he is 
able to do this, érei Act dee fforat, because he sits at the right hand of 
Jove.” Hymn. in Apoll. v. 28, 29. The Greeks called him, who par- 
ticipated with another in his kingly authority, otvecpoc, rapedpoc, avy- 
Spovec; although they also applied these terms to any member of a 
council, or of a deliberative judicial assembly. In the New Testament, 
when Christ is represented as sittmg at the right hand of Divine 
Majesty, Heb. i. 3; or at the right hand of God, Heb. x. 12; or at 
the right of the throne of God, Heb. xii. 2, participation in supreme 
dominion is most clearly meant. Compare Acts ii. 32—36. 1 Pet. iii. 
22. Rom. vill. 34. Mark xvi. 19. Phil. ii. 6—11. Eph. i. 20—23. At 
the same time, the comparison of these passages will show most clearly, 
that Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God, means, his being 
seated on the mediatorial throne, as the result and reward of his suffer- 


HEBREWS I. 5. 559 


ings, (see particularly Phil. 11. 6—11, and compare Heb. xii. 2;) and 
that the phrase in question never means, the original dominion which 
Christ as Logos or God possesses. The sacred writers never speak 
respecting the Logos, considered simply in his Dzvine nature, as being 
seated at the right hand of God; but only of the Logos incarnate, 
or the Mediator, as being there. So in our text, it is after the expia- 
tion made by the Son of God, that he is represented as seating himself 
at the right hand of the Divine Majesty. And that this mediatorial 
dominion is not to be considered simply as the dominion of the Divine 
nature of Christ as such, is plain from the fact, that when the media- 
torial office is fulfilled, the kingdom of the mediator as such is to cease, 
1 Cor. xv. 23—28. Moreover, that the phrase, to sit at the right 
hand of God, or of the throne of God, does not of itself mean, origi- 
nal divine dominion, is clear, from the fact, that Christ assures his 
faithful disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even as 
he has sat down with his Father on his throne, Rev. iii. 21. It is 
exaltation, then, in consequence of obedience and sufferings, which is 
designated by the phrase in question. See an excellent dissertation 
De Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei sedente, by the venerable Dr. 
Knapp of Halle, (vty éy dyiow,) in Knappii Scripta varii Argumenti. 
Hal. 1824, 


EXCURSUS V. 
HEs. I. 5.—’Eyo& Eoope avT@ sic Tarépa, Kat ad’roc Earat fiot gic vidr. 


A DIFFICULTY still remains, in regard to the application of 2 Sam. 
vii. 14, to Christ. In the very same verse, which contains the quotation 
made by the apostle, is contained the following expression: ‘If he 
commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the 
stripes of the children of men ;” i. e. I will inflict such punishment as 
men receive on account of transgression. Can it well be said respecting 
the Son of God, ‘If he commit iniquity ?” &c. Where can any ana- 
logy in Scripture be found, of such language applied to him? The 
answer must be, Nowhere. But by a nearer inspection of the whole 
prophecy, and by comparing it with other predictions of a similar nature, 
perhaps the difficulty presented may be diminished, if not removed. 
What hinders, that God should promise both temporal and spiritual 


560 EXCURSUS V. 


blessings to David, in consideration of his piety? See 2 Sam. vii. 
1—13. Why could he not promise him, that he should have successors 
on the throne, who should, like other men, fall into sin, and be 
chastened for it? And yet, that among those kings who should descend 
from him, there should be one, who was the Son of God in a peculiar 
sense, who was destined to a dignity—to a throne—of a most exalted 
nature? Such at least seems to be the exposition by the author of the 
eighty-ninth Psalm, ver. 29—37. 

Compare this now with the promises made to Abraham, Gen. xii. ]—3; 
ch. xv. 1—6; xvii. 1—8. These passages certainly contain assurances, 
that Abraham should have a literal, numerous offspring, and that they 
should inherit the land of Canaan; see Gen. xv. 7—18. Yet they also 
contain assurances of a seed, in whom all nations should be blessed, 
Gal. ili. 14—17; and of a seed who should be the heirs of Abraham’s 
faith, i. e. resemble him in regard to faith or belief, Gal. iii. 6—8. It 
may be difficult for us to ascertain, in some cases, where the temporal 
promise ends, and the spiritual one begins; and so vice versd ; because 
both are couched, as usual, in similar language. But this does not show 
that there is any absurdity, or any improbability, in the supposition that 
God may have promised, and that he has promised, blessings both spiri- 
tual and temporal at the same time. Did he not engage that David 
should have successors on his earthly throne; and also that he should 
have a Son who would sit on a spiritual throne ; and have a kingdom, of 
which David’s own was but a mere type! Luke i. 32, 33. Rom.i. 3, 4 
Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished, if not removed. The ‘ ini- 
quity committed” is predicated of that part of David’s seed who might 
commit it, i. e. his successors on the national throne; while the more 
exalted condition, predicated of his successor, belongs to him to whom 
was given a kingdom over all. 

If you say, ‘‘ Thus interpreted, the prophecy seems to be in a great 
measure general, and difficult to be definitely interpreted ;” the answer 
is, So it was designed to be. The general idea only was intended to be 
communicated, of some future most distinguished progeny of David. 
Very much of our difficulty in interpreting most of the prophecies of the 
Old Testament, arises from aiming to make them more specific and defi- 
nite, than they were originally intended to be. When we shall have 
thoroughly learned, that ‘‘ the law made nothing perfect,” we shall find 
less difficulty in the interpretation both of the Old and New Testament. 


561 


EXCURSUS VI. 
HEB. 1. 6.—Kai rpooxuyncarwaay aire mavrec ayyedo. Geos. 


As nearly all the commentators on our epistle have admitted, that the 
one or the other of these passages is actually quoted by the apostle, the 
difficulties to which such a supposition is exposed should be stated. 

In Deut. xxxii. 43 [Sept.], the very words are found, which appear in 
our text. But (1.) They are found only in the Septuagint version; the 
Hebrew, and all the ancient versions, omitting them. (2.) The copies of 
the Septuagint itself are not agreed respecting them. The Codex Alex. 
reads viot cov, instead of ayyedou Ocov, and one Codex at Oxford omits 
the whole clause. (3.) The subject connected with this command to the 
angels, (if we admit the clause in the Septuagint to be a part of the 
sacred text), has no relation to the Messiah. The context celebrates 
the victory over the enemies of Israel, which God will achieve. After 
saying, that “ his arrows should be drunk with blood, and that his 
sword should devour flesh, with the blood of the slain and of captives, 
from the time when he begins to take vengéance on the enemy ;” the 
Septuagint (not the Hebrew) immediately inserts, evppavSynre ovpavot 
apa aire Kal Teookvynodtwoay aiT@ TwavTEes Gyyedor Geov. This, in the 
place where it stands, must needs mean, ‘‘ Let the inhabitants of the 
heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the enemies of his 
people, and let them pay their adoration to him.” But the Messiah 
does not seem to be at all alluded to, any where in the context; much 
less described as being introduced into the world. I should therefore 
think it very improbable, if the apostle meant to quote Scripture, that 
he meant to quote this Scripture, on the present occasion; for we have 
no knowledge, (unless it be implied in our text), that the Jews of his 
time were wont to apply this passage to the Messiah. Still, it is a pos- 
sible case that he quoted the words of Deut. xxxii. 43, merely as fitted 
to express the idea which he intended to convey ; just as we now borrow 
scripture language, every day, to convey our own ideas, without feeling 
it to be at all necessary to prove, in every case, that the same meaning 
was originally conveyed by the words which we employ, as we attach to 
them in our discourse. Such a use, it is well known, is not unfre- 
quently made of passages from the Old Testament by the writers of the 

20 


562 "EXCURSUS VI. 


New; and such an one, Storr maintains, is here made by the apostle, of 
the words of the Septuagint, in Deut. xxxii. 43. 

The probability, however, all things considered, is in favour of a 
quotation, (if it be necessary to suppose a quotation,) from Ps. xevii. 7, 
(Sept. Ps. xevi. 7;) where the Septuagint has zpooxuvijoare airy wavreg 
diyyedoe avrov, as a translation of the Hebrew, DY}IN- 2D Pe WIT 
worship him, all ye Elohim. Here adrov, in the Septuagint, stands 
after &yyedor, but in Heb. i. 6, it is cov; and «at in our quotation, is 
wanting in the Septuagint. But any one who has compared the quota- 
tions of the New Testament from the Old, either with the Hebrew or 
Septuagint, must have seen that very few of them are verbatim. The 
variation here of the quotation from the original, is so small, and so 
entirely unconcerned with the sense of the passage, that the discrepancy 
will not be any hinderance at all to the supposition that Ps. xcvii. 7, 
may have been quoted. + Yet the subject of this psalm does not, at first 
view, seem to be the Messiah. The universal reign of Jehovah, his 
victory over his enemies, the manifestation of his glory to all nations, 
and the confusion of idolaters, are celebrated in the context. The verse 
from which our quotation is made runs thus: ‘‘ Confounded be all they 
that serve graven images, that boast themselves of their idols, zpoocury- 
care a’Te Tarrec tyyedor Oeov, OVS DN 2D;” i.e. “let all created things, 
which are the objects of worship, feudal of receiving adoration, pay it 
to Jehovah. Jehovah alone is the proper object of religious homage.” 

Yet it is certainly a possible case, that this very psalm celebrates the 
coming and empire of Christ, who was, as Simeon says, Luke ii. 32, 
pee cig aroxdduify éSvGv, Kat ddgav aod cov *lopayrA, (compare Ps. 
xcvil. 6;) and whose coming was to destroy idolatry, and fill the hearts 
of the righteous with gladness, ver. 11, 12. It must be admitted, how- 
ever, that if the ninety-seventh psalm was designed to be applied to the 
Messiah, it is one of those which are much less definite and plain in 
regard to such an application, than several others. The Jews, as Kimchi 
asserts, Were wont to apply all the psalms, from Ps. xciiil. to Ps. ci., to 
the Messiah. If such an explanation was current in the time of Paul, 
it would give additional force to the appeal here made. And even if 
Paul himself did not regard Ps. xevii. as originally designed to be applied 
to the Messiah, he might still use the words of it as descriptive of a fact 
which took place at the time of the Saviour’s birth. The Jewish Chris- 
tians, whom he addressed, could not have been ignorant of what 
happened in regard to the angels, at the time of this birth, Supposing, 


HEBREWS I. 6 663 


then, that the original Hebrew of the ninety-seventh psalm only means, 
«* Worship him, all ye who are worshipped, (ayy OD ;”] and that the 
LXX. translated this as it now appears in their version; why could not 
Paul make use of their words, to describe facts which happened in later 
times? If you say, “‘ This would be only to foster an erroneous trans- 
lation of the Hebrew by the LXX., and an erroneous application of it 
by the Jews:” the answer is, The fact itself is not an error; viz. that 
the angels worshipped the Saviour. The words of Ps. xcvii. 7, thus 
applied, designate what is really true. If the Jews, to whom they were 
originally addressed, were accustomed to apply them to the Messiah, 
then the use which the apostle makes of them would be the more 
impressive; and impressive of an idea founded in reality, viz. that the 
Son of God was the object of angelic worship. 

That the apostle, however, designed any thing more, than merely to 
use a phrase well known to the readers of the Septuagint version, 
borrowed from Ps. xcvii. 7, and accommodated to express his own ideas, 
need not be supposed ; and cannot, indeed, well be proved. But if any 
are not content with this, (which I should myself prefer, provided we 
allow it to be an actual quotation ;) then it is, certainly, very possible 
to suppose, that the ninety-seventh psalm relates to the coming and 
kingdom of the Messiah, and that the appeal to it for a proof passage 
relative to him, is strictly proper, and not difficult to be understood. 
In either way, the difficulty which offers itself to the mind, on the first 
examination of the text, is greatly diminished, if not wholly removed, so 
far as appeal, by way of quotation, is concerned. 

For my own part, I do not regard it as necessary to suppose that the 
phrase in question is quoted at all. Surely it is not improbable, that 
the writer means only to say, ‘‘ The Father, who introduced the Son 
into the world, said, mpooxvyynodrwoar, x. r..”’ The Christian Jews, 
who cannot be supposed to be ignorant of what had happened at the 
time of the Saviour’s birth, could hardly doubt of the writer’s meaning. 
Thus the difficulty of the text would be removed. But if a quotation be 
insisted on, then, with Storr, I am inclined, as before suggested, to 
regard it as simply using a Septuagint phrase, in order to convey the 
apostle’s own ideas. Yet the exposition, which is founded on the appli- 
cation of the ninety-seventh psalm to the Messiah, and which explains 
our text as the quotation of an actual prophecy, is not impossible; and, | 
perhaps, not even improbable. 

202 


564 “EXCURSUS VII. 


One question, however, still remains. How could the LXX., and 
Paul after them, translate DYTON by angels? It is admitted, that the 
great body of lexicographers and critics, in modern times, reject the 
sense of the word here given. But usage, after all, pleads in favour of 
it. The Septuagint render ON (God) by &yyedoc, in Job xx. 15; and 
DDN, by dyyedor, in Ps. viii. 6; xevil. (xevi.) 7; exxxvii. I. Paul 
Hilla them, by quoting Ps. viii. 6, in Heb. ii. 7; and also by quoting 
Ps. xcvii. 7, in the verse before us; i. e. supposing that he does actually 
quote it. Is not this sufficient evidence that there was a usus loguendé 
among the Jews, which applied the word DYN occasionally, to desig- 
nate angels? It is admitted, that kings and magistrates are called 
Elohim, because of their rank or dignity. Is there any thing improbable 
in the supposition, that angels may be also called DDN, who, at 
present, are elevated above men? Heb. ii. 7. Facts, and ne suppose- 
tions, are evidences of the wsus loguendi of the Jewish writers. 


EXCURSUS VII. 


Sy ~ , 
Hes. 1. 10, 12.—20 car’ dpyac, kipte, riy viv éESepediwoac, Kal Epya 
~ ~ oN eee \ > to» ~ ‘ 
THY XEpy cov eiaty ot oVpavot. Avrol arodovyTaL, ov 
be 8 ms \ ld e eRe: F 
€ Ouapeveic? Kal mayrec we ipariv tarawShoovrar, 
Kal moet repidratoy Edizete avrove, kat ad\Nayhoovrat’ 


. \ SN ce x Ui 
av o& 6 a’roc El, Kal Ta Ern Gov OK ExNeiWovot. 


In regard to the body of the psalm, (Ps. cii.,) from which this whole 
quotation is taken, the majority of late critics agree in the opinion, that 
it does not primarily relate to the Messiah, but to Jehovah, absolutely 
considered. It is, no doubt, one of those psalms, the internal evidence 
of which does not so clearly and definitely determine the application of 
the whole composition, as does that of many others. Thus much, also, 
seems to be clear; there is nothing in the psalm, which forbids the 
application of it to the Messiah. Nay, there are several passages in it, 
which apply to him in a more apposite way than to any other personage. 
If we suppose the complaint (ver. 1—11) to be that of the church, 
previously to the appearance of its Redeemer, then does the sequel well 
agree with the promised redemption. In particular, ver. 15. 18 20. 22, 


HEBREWS I. 11, 12. 565 


describe the propagation and prosperity of true religion among the 
heathen. But when was such a diffusion of the true knowledge and 
worship of God to take place? Under the Jewish dispensation, or under 
the Christian? Surely, under the latter only. Compare, too, ver. 20, 
with Isa. Ixi. 1, which the Saviour applies to himself, Luke iv. 17—21. 
Ver. 23, 24, of Ps. cii. renew the complaint of the church; and ver. 
25—28, contain the answer, viz. that the Redeemer is the Creator, and 
immutable, and that the church shall be continued, and a godly seed be 
permanent. So I am inclined to explain the whole psalm; and so, at 
any rate, the writer of our epistle seems to have understood it. Certainly 
there is nothing that forbids such an explanation, when it is once 
admitted that the Messiah was at all the subject of prediction in 
ancient times, and that some of the psalms do actually contain such 
predictions. 

But if any one prefers construing Ps. cii. as applicable merely to 
Jehovah, absolutely considered, then there is no serious difficulty with 
respect to our quotation. The application of the same words to the 
Son of God, which were originally spoken respecting Jehovah, is equi- 
valent to saying, ‘“‘ What was affirmed by the psalmist of Jehovah, may 
be as truly affirmed of the Son.” As the writer applies the words 
in this manner, it shows that he considered those whom he addressed as 
being accustomed to make such an application of them, and that they 
were willing to admit it; otherwise he could not have expected the 
argument to be acknowledged by them as a forcible one. 

Admitting, now, that the apostle has correctly applied this passage to 
the Son, it follows that the Son possesses a nature truly divine. The 
act of creation is the highest evidence of such a nature, that is offered, 
or can be offered, to our minds; and the sacred writers appeal to it as 
such. See Rom. i. 20. Ps. xix. 1. Acts xiv. 15. Isa. xl. 25, 26 ch: 
Mi 5—s 3 xl. 15 3 xlive- 245 xly. 185 xlvis 9is xlym. 12303... The 
force of the proof in question is not altered, whether you suppose the 
hundred-and-second psalm originally to relate to the Messiah, or not. 
If it originally related to him, then the application is clear and unem- 
barrassed. If it criginally related to Jehovah, simply considered, then 
the apostle asserts here, that what was said of Jehovah may also be 
applied, in the same manner, to the Son. Of course, the weight of the 
argument is the same in either case, as it respects the divine nature of 
Christ. Either would show the opinion of the writer to be, that the Son 
is eternal, and the creator of the universe ; of course, that he 1s exalted 


566 EXCURSUS VIII. 


beyond all measure above the angels, and is truly divine. For, as the 
same writer says, He who made all things is God, Heb. iii. 4. 

We may observe, too, that this last argument is the climax of the 
whole, and completes the proof which the apostle adduces, to show the 
exalted dignity of the Son. He had intimated the same sentiment at 
the commencement of his epistle, ver. 2; but here he brings out into 
full light, the nature of his views respecting this subject. Whatever, 
then, may be the economy, according to which God made all things by 
his Son, it is not of such a nature as to exclude supreme Creatorship, 
and eternal existence, as belonging to the Son; both of which are 
asserted to belong to him by the passage before us. 


EXCURSUS VIII. 
HEB. 11. 2.—Ei yap 6 oi ayyéAwy AadySele Adyoe. 


THERE are two methods of explaining this. (1.) the apostle here 
speaks merely in the way of accommodation to the Jewish mode of 
representing this subject. The Jews attributed the giving of the law 
to angels, as mediators or znternunciz between Jehovah and them; and 
they were accustomed to make high claims, in respect to the dignity 
and superior excellency of their law, on this account. The apostle 
here adverts to their views of this subject; and what he says amounts 
to this, “‘ If every transgression of the law, which you regard as given 
by the mediation of angels, was punished,” &c. In like manner, the 
same apostle says to the Galatians, “‘ Who hath bewitched you 2?” 
without intending to teach us that he believed in the power of witch- 
craft. And so our Saviour speaks to the Jews, of ‘the unclean spirit 
that goes out of a man, and walks through dry [desert] places, seeking 
rest and finding none, but afterwards it returns with seven other 
spirits, and repossesses the same man,” Matt. xii. 43. Now, as this is 
not intended to teach us, that impure spirits actually wander about in 
deserts, &c., so we are not obliged to understand the apostle as mean- 
ing anything more by the expression in question, than a reference 
to the Jewish mode of speaking and thinking relative to the subject of 
angels. But, 

(2.) Another mode of explanation is, that the phrase contains a 


HEBREWS Il, 2. 567 


concession, on the part of the writer, of what was viewed by him to 
be matter of fact. This view I feel constrained to adopt, by a com- 
parison of similar passages. In Acts vii. 53, Stephen says to the Jews, 
“Ye have received the law, cic duarayac ayyédwy, by the disposition 
[order, arrangement] of angels ;” and Paul, speaking of the law, in 
Gal. iii. 19, says, that it was dvarayete oi ayyéd\wy, arranged, [disposed 
proposed,] by angels. 

But here a difficulty is urged. God himself proclaimed the law to 
the Israelites, Exod. xx. 1. 19. 22. Deut. v. 4. How then can the 
law be said to be AadnSele di dyyékwy; Different ways of avoiding and 
of answering this difficulty, have been adopted. Some have denied 
that 6 Xéyoc here means the law; and they interpret it as referring to 
the different messages, which in the Old Testament are said to have 
been delivered by angels. Others have made a distinction between 
what was said directly to Moses by God himself, and what was pro- 
mulgated [durayete cic cuarayac,| as they say to the people at large, 
by angels. That the law of Moses is meant, is plain from a compari- 
son of Heb. x. 28, 29, and ch. xii. 26; as well as from the nature of 
the comparison here proposed, between the old dispensation and the 
new one. And that the tenuous distinction made, in the second case, 
is unnecessary, every one who reflects well on the uwsus loquendi of 
Scripture will concede. God is very often said to do that, which in- 
struments under his direction, or under the general arrangements of 
his providence, accomplish. This idiom proceeds so far, that even evil 
is ascribed to him in this way by one phrase, which another passage 
shows to have been perpetrated by an inferior agent: e.g. 2 Sam. 
xxiv. 7, it is said of Jehovah, D5) he moved [or excited] David to 
go and number Israel; which crime was followed by tremendous punish- 
ment. Yet in Chron. xxi. 1, it is said of Satan, ND"), he moved 
David to go and number Israel. So it is repeatedly said of Pharaoh, 
that he hardened his own heart, and that the Lord hardened his heart, 
in Exod. iv—x. So, according to the prophet, Jehovah smites the 
confederate Syrians and Israelites, Isa. vii.—ix.; so in other passages, 
Jehovah is represented as smiting the nations of Judah, of Assyria, , 
of Babylonia, of Egypt, of Tyre, of Moab, &c. Yet, in all these cases, 
instruments were employed. Solomon builé the temple; but he did 
not hew and lay the stones with his own hands, nor carve the goodly 
architecture. Nothing can be more erroneous, then, in most cases, 
than to draw the conclusion, that because the Scripture asserts some 


568 EXCURSUS VIII. 


particular thing to have been done by God, therefore he did it zmme- 
diately, and no instruments were employed by him. How much 
difficulty and contradiction, as well in theology as in interpretation, 
has such a mode of reasoning produced! In interpreting the principles 
of human laws, we say, Quz facet per alium, facit per se. Does not 
common sense approve of this, as applied to the language of the Scrip- 
tures? Nothing can be more evident, than that the sacred writers have 
expressed themselves in a manner which recognizes this principle. 

If then we are pressed with the diteral explanation of 6 di ayyé\wy 
Adyoc, and any one insists, that this can mean no less than that angels 
uttered audible sounds, when the law was given; all this may be con- 


ceded, and still no contradiction be found in the representations of 


Scripture, when its wsus loqguendz is well understood. God did what the 
angels performed by his direction. 

Yet such a literal interpretation of this passage is hardly to be insisted 
on. Stephen, in Acts vii. 53, and Paul in Gal. iii. 19, assert only that 
the law was Cuarayele oi ayyéAwy ; which well expresses the general sense 
to be attached to an expression of this nature, viz. “ the angels were 
ministering spirits or assisted at the giving of the law.” Such was the 
Jewish tradition, in the apostolic age. Josephus says, ‘‘ Our best 
maxims and most excellent laws we have learned of God, 0i ayyé\wr, 
Archeol. XV. 9. Philo, (Lib. de Decalogo,) states, that ‘‘ there were 
present, at the giving of the law, visible sounds, animated and splendid, 
flames of fire, tvevpara, trumpets, and divine men running hither and 
thither, to publish the law. Yet in another place he states, that ‘‘ God 
only spake the law to Moses ;” which, however, as we have seen above, 
is not inconsistent with the former representation. 

In addition to all this, there is a passage in Deut. xxxill. 2, respecting 
the legisiation at Sinai, which seems to refer to the fact designed to be 
stated in our text. ‘‘ The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir 
unto them [the children of Israel;] he shined from mount Paran, he 
came with holy myriads, (wap M2372). ” By the holy myriads here 
. mentioned, must be meant the angels; so that the Old and New Testa- 
ment agree, in representing the angels as present when the law was given, 
and as being ministering spirits on the occasion. 

That the Jews, and a multitude of Christians after them, have carried 
speculation to a repulsive length, on the subject of angelic ministration 
at the giving of the law, does not disprove the fact itself; much less are 
their extravagances to be imputed to the writer of our epistle. While 


—_— 


HEBREWS II. 6-8. 569 


some have maintained, that the angels made circuits round the camp of 
the Hebrews; others, that they excited the thunders, and lightnings, 
and tempest; some, that they blew the trumpets; others, that they 
caused the quaking of the earth; some, that they delivered the tables of 
the law to Moses; others, that they uttered audibly the words of the law; 
and others still, that they were mere spectators of the awful scene; we 
may stand aloof from being thus wise above what is written, and content 
ourselves simply with what our author teaches us, and what the Scrip- 
tures confirm, viz. that angels did assist at the giving of the law, or were 
in some way employed by Jehovah, on the occasion of its being pro- 
mulgated. This is all the text can be well interpreted as meaning, and 
all that is requisite for the argument of the apostle. 





EXCURSUS IX. 


\ 
HEB. 11, 6—8.—Acepapruparo d& mou ric, Méywy, Ti éorw cvSpwroe, bre 
s a © EN eg) Uh GN > S& / ew > nd > \ 
pysynokn avrov* 7} VWw¢ avSpwrou, Ore Eriakerrn avuror 3 
, i? or ‘ ? > s . Ni ey ake \ 
HyXarrwoae avroy Bpaxv Te Tap ayyédove oo&n Kat 
> E 9) aN \ , Dean ISN ‘ 
TY EaTEPavwoage avroY, (Kal Karéornoac avroy éml Ta 
Ui ~ ~ , ~ 
Epya T@Y xE—pGy cov’) TaVvTa wrérakac broKdTw Tov 


Ss, = 
TOOWY AUTOV. 


Tuus far the quotation from Ps. viii. But how, it is asked, can this 
apply to Christ in particular, when the author of this psalm evidently 
speaks of human nature, or man in general? Many of the later com- 
mentators reply to this question, by conceding that the apostle uses the 
words of the psalm only in an accommodated sense, in order to express 
his own views of the superiority of Christ’s human nature. But this 
answer does not meet all the demands of the case. It is evident, that 
the writer appeals to Scripture authority here, in support of the propo- 
sition which he had advanced, viz. that the human nature of Christ is 
superior to that of the angels. If, now, the passage contains nothing 
more than an assertion of that dignity which is common to all men, how 
would this tend to convince those to whom he wrote, that the human 
nature of Christ is superior to that of the angels ? 

It is difficult, then, to avoid the supposition, that the eighth psalm 
was referred to the Messiah, by those whom the apostle addressed. Was 
it rightly referred to him as being prophetic of him, or not? Many 


570 EXCURSUS IX. 


commentators answer in the negative. But is there not some reason 
here, to adhere to the more ancient method of interpretation? Let the 
reader, now, peruse 2 Sam. ch. vil. through, and then direct his atten- 
tion to ver. 17—29, in particular to ver. 18, 19. 26. 29. compared with 
the prophetic declarations of Nathan in ver, 12—16. Does not the 
frame of mind, in which David appears to have been on this occasion, 
correspond well with that described in Ps. vill. 5? Suppose now, that 
David, in surveying the works of creation, is, in the first place, deeply 
impressed with his own insignificance, in a comparative point of view; 
and then, in the next place, revolves in his mind the promises made to 
him, as recorded in 2 Sam. ch. vil. His mind is naturally led to dwell 
on the distinguished goodness of God, in exalting a creature so insigni- 
ficant as himself, to honour so great as the prophet had promised to him. 
Among his posterity was to be one, who should be the Son of God, and 
on whom universal empire should be conferred, 2 Sam. vii. 12—16, com- 
pared with ver. 8—11. In view of such honours, how natural would be 
the expressions in Ps. viii. 6—10. In the person of this illustrious 
descendant, whom Nathan had promised to him, he could see with a 
prophetic eye, that the human nature would be exalted to universal 
dominion. No created thing was to be excepted from this dominion. 
As to the particulars enumerated in Ps. viii. 8, 9, they are plainly bor- 
rowed from Gen. i. 26, seq. and indicate nothing more than universality 
of dominion. They amount to saying, ‘‘ The dominion originally 
assigned to man over the creation around him, and abridged by his fall, 
is to be actually conferred on human nature; and this, too, in a still 
higher sense, inasmuch as all things are to be subjected to the Messiah.” 
In other words, not only is man to have such dominion as by his original 
creation he was designed to have, viz. over beasts, and fowls, and fishes, 
but nothing, in this case, is to be excepted. With such views as these, 
might not the royal psalmist well add, ‘‘ How excellent is thy name in 
all the earth !” 

Who, now, that admits the spirit of prophecy to have at all existed, 
can deny that David might have had such a view of his future Son ? 
Nay, considering the use which the apostle has made of the passage in 
question, is not this explanation of the psalm a probable one ? 

I am disposed, then, to believe that the course of thought, in David's 
mind, was something like the following : ‘‘ Lord, how insignificant am I, 
compared with the glorious works which the heavens display! Yet thou 
hast magnified thy goodness toward me in a wonderful manner. Thou 


HEBREWS Il. 6—8. 571 


hast not only formed me in thine image, and bestowed many blessings 
upon me, but promised me a Son, on whom distinguished glory and wnz- 
versal empire shall be conferred. Can it be, that human nature will be 
thus exalted? Adored be thy name through all the earth!” 

What is there, now, in all this, which is any more improbable than 
any other prophetic declaration respecting a future Saviour, and Lord of 
the world ? 

But if any one refuses to admit these views, there is still a sense, in which 
all the saints are, through Christ, to be exalted above angels, and to have 
a participation in the dominion of the world. They are, as being united 
with the Messiah, as being his brethren (Heb. ii. 11,) to judge, i. e. rule 
(sy, kptvew] the world, 1 Cor. vi. 2; to rule over the angels, 1 Cor. 
vi. 3: to have power over the nations, and rule them, Rev. ii. 26, 27; 
to sit with the Redeemer on his throne, Rev. iii. 21; they are made kings 
and priests unto God, and reign over the earth, Rev. v.10. All this | 
however, is plainly spoken in a qualified sense; and such privileges are 
bestowed upon them only by virtue of their union with Christ, to whom 
supreme dominion belongs. In like manner we say, ‘‘ The Romans 
held the empire of the world ;” attributing to the nation what properly 
belonged to their prince. 

Human nature, then, in the persons of the saints—in a special manner, 
of course, in the person of their Head or leader—is exalted to a state of 
precedence above the angels, to a state of universal dominion. Conse- 
quently, that Christ possessed a nature which was human, did not make 
him inferior to the angels, but (since this nature was to be thus exalted) 
superior to them. And thus the psalmist declared it should be. 

If the whole passage be understood as limited principally to Christ, or 
as extending to the saints also, the point which the apostle aims to prove 
is established. But it is only by understanding the passage according to 
the first method of interpreting it, that we can well apply, in its full 
force, the sequel of the apostle’s remarks. Indeed, what can be more 
evident, than that since the fall of our first parents, universal dominion, 
even over all the animal creation, has never been actually possessed by 
man? Christ only has it, in its full sense; and in him only have the 
words of Ps. viii. had a adjpwoie in all the extent of their meaning. 
When we once admit that prophetic anticipations of Christ were possible, 
and matters of fact, is there any thing which creates a serious difficulty, 
in supposing them to have been actually entertained by David in respee 
to Christ, and to haye been uttered in the psalm just mentioned 2 


572 EXCURSUS X. 


EXCURSUS X. 


HEs. I. 13.—Kal waduy, "Eyw toopae wetoSig éx’ airp kat radu, "dou 


SIN Nees oS, “ TaN « ‘ 
Ey, Kat Ta TWaLola a poe EOWKEV O Ococ. 


But how does the passage quoted relate to the Messiah? In 
Is. vili. 17, 18, the subject spoken of is the prophet himself, who 
declares that he will keep himself in the attitude of constant waiting, 
i.e. In expectation that the prophecies which he had just been uttering 
would be fulfilled; and he appeals to the children, to which had been 
given symbolical names, and which God had given to him as pledges 
that these prophecies would be fulfilled. It would seem, then, at first 
view, that our author had accommodated this passage, merely for the 
purpose of expressing his views of the subject before him. There can be 
but little doubt, however, that when our epistle was written, the Jews in 
general construed a part of the chapter of Isaiah in question, as having 
respect to the Messiah. Thus Paul, in Rom. ix. 32, 33, seems plainly 
to refer to Is. vili. 14, as the source of a part of his quotation; and this 
passage he treats as applicable to Christ. In a similar way, also, the 
passage under consideration, with the clause that follows, appears to be 
treated. Indeed, unless the persons to whom Paul wrote would readily 
refer the passage quoted to the Messiah, it is difficult to perceive how 
the quotation, in the shape in which it is here introduced, would present 
any argument to them in favour of the position, that men are the 
brethren of the Messiah. But still, the mode of reasoning, it must be 
owned, seems to be argumentum ad hominem, or argumentum ex con- 
cessis, rather than from the real nature of things, considered inde- 
pendently of the opinions of those to whom our author wrote. Critics, 
in modern times, have felt a difficulty in considering this species of 
argument as admissible by a sacred writer. The Christian fathers, 
however, had no difficulties of this sort; most of them freely 
admitted it. 

The majority of Protestant critics have considered the passage of 
Isaiah now in question, as actually spoken in the person of the Messiah. 
This they have done, in order to avoid the necessity of admitting an 
argumentum ex concessis ; which has been regarded by them, as incon- 
gruous with the character of an inspired writer. But in avoiding one 


HEBREWS II. 13. 573 


difficulty, they have fallen upon another equally great; for all the laws 
of exegesis, which bid us to connect text with context, and to interpret 
a writer so as to make him speak connectedly and directly to his pur- 
pose, are put at defiance, when we interpret the words of Isa. viii. 17, 18, 
as originally having been spoken with direct and primary reference to 
the Messiah, or in his person. To admit such a violation, would be a 
more serious evil than to concede, with nearly all antiquity, that the 
apostles did sometimes employ the argumentum ex concessis, as in the 
case above stated. 

One may liken this case to that of a missionary in Hindoostan, who, 
designing to shew the possibility and probability that God might mani- 
fest himself in the flesh, should appeal, in the course of’ his argument, 
for the sake of silencing objectors, to the Shasters, which inculcate the 
doctrine that Vishnu became incarnate. Would such an appeal be 
morally wrong? And if not, might not the writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews make use of the views of those whom he addressed, respecting 
a particular passage of Scripture, (although those views might not have 
been exegetically well grounded), in order to confirm them in the belief 
of a truth that was well grounded, and which he knew to be certain, by 
revelation, or by other Scriptures which had a direct bearing upon it? 
However one might decide the case by reasoning a prior?, most men 
practically admit such methods of persuasion, and, in other things, are 
very ready to justify them. Whether we are willing, however, or un- 
willing to admit the fact presented before us, can surely never alter the 
fact itself. Thus much we may truly say, viz. that those modes of 
explanation, which, in order to get rid of a difficulty, set afloat all the 
fixed principles and fundamental laws of interpretation, cannot be 
admitted without the greatest possible danger to the Scriptures; yet, 
without the admission of such principles, the words of the passages in 
question do not appear susceptible of being construed as originally and 
primarily having had a direct reference to the Messiah. 

After all, this view of the subject applies merely to the simple inter- 
pretation of the original words of Isaiah, ch. viii. ; but not to the typical 
design which may have been attached to the things or facts there related. 
We know that in the preceding chapter, the birth of a child, to be called 
Emmanuel, who was to spring from a virgin, is predicted, (ch. vii. 14;) 
which birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that within some three years 
(compare ver. 14 with 15, 16) the land of Judah should be delivered 
from the confederated kings of Israel and Syria, who had imvaded it. 


574 EXCURSUS X. 


Originally, and literally, this seems applicable only to the birth or a 
child within that period of three years; for how could the birth of Jesus, 
which happened seven hundred and forty-two years afterwards, be a sign 
(MIN) to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom was to be freed 
from his enemies? Such a child, it would seem, was born at that period ; 
for, in ch. vili. 8. 10, he is twice referred to as if then present, or at least 
then living. In ver. 10, our English version has translated the proper 
name DNIIDY, and thus obscured the form of the original Hebrew. 

Yet, in Matt. i. 23, the passage in Isa. vii. 14, appears to be cited, as 
containing a prophecy relative to the Saviour’s being conceived in the 
womb of the virgin Mary. In what way, then, must we explain this? 
How was it a zAjpwore of Isa. vii. 14? To these questions, two answers 
may be given. (1.) It may have been a zAyjoworc, in the same sense as 
Christ’s being called out of Egypt (Matt. ii. 15,) was a aAjpware of 
Hos. xi. 1; 1. e. the event, which happened in later times, bore a strong 
resemblance to the one which happened in earlier times ; the latter event, 
too, was of such a nature, that the words of Scripture, applied to 
characterize the early event, might be applied with a tAjpworc, 1. e. with 
more completeness, with more force, more propriety, more energy, to the 
latter event, than to the earlier one. Just so, the application of a 
passage in the Old Testament is made to the slaughter of the infants at 
Bethlehem, in Matt. il. 17, 18; compare Jer. xxxi. 15. In the same 
manner, many other passages of the New Testament are to be construed, 
which refer in a similar way to the Old Testament. 

But if this answer be unsatisfactory, it may be added, (2.) That some 
of the extraordinary events themselves, related in Isa. vil. and vill., may 
have been designed by God, and probably were designed by him, to be 
typical or symbolical of a future spiritual salvation and Saviour. Why 
is this any more impossible or improbable, than that there were other 
types and symbols, under the ancient dispensation, of things which were 
to exist under the new one? The Immanuel then born, in an extra- 
ordinary way, and then by his birth and name a pledge of temporal 
deliverance to Judah from their enemies, might well be a symbol of Him 
who was to save his people from all their spiritual enemies, to bring in 
everlasting redemption ; whose name, also, was truly, in a much higher 
sense, ONIIDY, Gop witH vs. If so, then the prophet, with his sym 
bolical children, (Isa. viii. 18,) giving assurance of temporal deliverance, 
may have acted a part that was symbolical of a future prophet, whe 
would proclaim spiritual deliverance. In all this, there certainly © 


- 


HEBREWS II. 13. 575 


nothing impossible. The laws of exegesis are not infringed by such a 
supposition, The words of the prophet. have but one simple origina! 
meaning. They apply directly to the transactions with Ahaz. But the 
whole of these transactions may have been (may I not add, seem actually 
to have been?) designed to prefigure a greater prophet, and a greater 
deliverance. Unless we deny the possibility of prophetic symbol, we 
must admit the possibility of this. Its probability is deducible from the 
use which the New Testament writers make of these facts. They seem 
to consider them as having a relation to Christ. I grant the possibility 
of the exegesis which explains the whole as argumentum ad hominem. 
It might be justified by numerous appeals to the New Testament; and 
he who wholly denies this principle, only shows that he decides upon the 
subject by reasoning a priori; for the examination of facts cannot fail 
to convince any one who will patiently and thoroughly make it. But 
still it does seem to me more probable, taking the appeal in Matt. i. 23, 
to Isa. vii. 14, and the appeal in our text and context to Isa. vii. 17, 18, 
that the prophet and Immanuel here act parts which may be regarded 
in the light of symbols. The extraordinary birth of the child Immanuel, 
at that time, is the symbol of the future birth of a spiritual Saviour ; and 
the prophet with his children announcing deliverance from the con- 
federated enemies of Israel, is a symbol of him who was to “ preach 
liberty to the captives,’ and whose spiritual children were to be the 
pledge, that all his promises of good should be fulfilled. Is there any 
thing unnatural or strange in all this? 

If now this be admitted, then the words of our text may not unaptly 
be applied to Christ. For as the type put his confidence in God, so 
did the antitype. As the type had children who were pledges for the 
deliverance of Judah, so has the antitype ‘‘ many sons and daughters,” 
the pledges of his powerful grace, and sureties that his promises in 
regard to future blessings will be accomplished. As the type confided 
in God, because he possessed a nature that was dependent and humau, 
so the antitype must have a like nature in order to use the same lan- 
- guage; and as the type bore the relation of parent to children that 
were pledges of future blessings, and therefore possessed a like nature 
with them, so the antitype had a community of nature with those who 
were his spiritual children, and who were pledges that all his promises 
should be performed. Compare 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5. 

Thus understood, the whole quotation may be regarded not only as 
justified, but as apposite. Still, if any refuse to consider it in this 


576 EXCURSUS X. 


light, because, as they aver, they are unable to see how the words of 
Isaiah can be considered in the light of prediction; this reason cannot 
be regarded as in itself sufficiently valid. The words employed in 
Isa. ch. vil. and vii., have, in themselves, I freely concede, no direct 
reference to the Messiah, but to things and events connected with 
the affairs of Ahaz and his people. Neither have the words a double 
sense; which can never be conceded, without destroying the very basis 
of all stable interpretation. Yet the events themselves, events con- 
nected with the temporal deliverance of God’s people then, may be 
symbols of a subsequent and spiritual deliverance and deliverer. 

But it any one refuses to admit even thus much, it will be difficult 
for him to show, that the writer of this epistle might not use argumen- 
tum ex concessis here, (i. e. appeal to those views of scripture, which 
they whom he addressed entertained,) in order to confirm in them a 
belief of what he certainly knew to be true; as well as the Saviour 
could appeal to the Jewish belief, respecting the wandering of unclean 
spirits, in desert places, and many of them taking possession of a man 
at one and the same time, Matt. xil. 43, seq.; or as well as the 
Saviour could say to the Jews, ‘“‘ If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, 
by whom do your sons cast them out?” Luke xi. 19. The difficulty 
is, in fact, no greater with the quotation under examination, than with 
many others in the New Testament. Understood in any of the ways 
that have been proposed, it forms no important objection against the 
sacred writings, or their divine authority; although considered in the 
light of accommodation simply, it would interfere with some of the 
modern theories of inspiration. But, as has already been stated, the 
ancient churches, high as their views were on the subject of inspiration, 
had no hesitancy, in general, to admit the principle, that the New 
Testament writers have, not unfrequently, applied the Old Testament 
Scriptures merely by way of accommodation. While, then, for myself, 
I must believe there is something more than accommodation in the 
passage under consideration, yet I should not feel it to be a just cause 
for want of charity towards another, who should adopt a different mode 
of explanation, and regard the passages cited to be merely an argu- 
mentum ex concessis. 

It is a strong ground of confirmation, with respect to the symbolical 
exegesis which has been above proposed, that the prophecy in Isaiah, 
(which begins with the eighth chapter and ends with chap. 1x. 7,) 
contains, at the close of it, most indubitable proofs, that the birth 


HEBREWS V. 7. SF/F/ 


- of the Messiah, and the “‘ coming of his kingdom” was, on this occa- 
sion, distinctly before the mind of the prophet ; see Isa. ix. 1—7. 
The whole together, taken in connexion with what appears evidently to 
be the views of the New Testament writers, seems to leave but little 
doubt, that such as at all acknowledge the existence of prophecy and 
symbol, in respect to a Messiah who was to come, may recognize them 
both in the case before us. 


EXCURSUS XI. 


HEB. V. 7—Oc év raic fypépace rij¢ capKoe avrov, dejoee re Kal ixernpiacg 
\ a , , ’ ‘\ > ld . , 

mpoc Tov duvapevov owley abrov & Savdrov, pera Kpavyijc 

ioxupac Kal daxpvwy mpocevéyKac, Kal Eicakovodeic dro Tig 


evaBerac. 


But what was that which Christ feared? And how can it be said, 
that he was delivered from it? Questions which commentators, for 
the most part, have passed by, even without any serious attempt to 
answer them. 

If, now, we turn to Luke xii. 50, we shall see, that a view of sufferings, 
then future, produced in the mind of Jesus an oppressive anticipation, 
a sensation of distress and dread. As the scene of crucifixion ap- 
proached nearer, these sensations were evidently increased, until they 
became almost overwhelming; as we may see by consulting Matt. 
xxvi. 36—39. Luke xxi. 40—44. Mark xiv. 34—36. What the 
agonies of the cross, whieh Jesus endured, actually were, we can never 
fully know; but we may draw the conclusion that they were very dread- 
ful, if we read the account of the complaint which they forced from 
him, as it is recorded in Matt. xxvil. 36. Mark xv. 34. It is, indeed, 
unaccountable, that a character such as that of Jesus, pure, spotless, 
firm, unmoved by opposition, and contumely, and persecution, and un 
awed by threatenings and dangers, during the whole course of his public 
ministry, should exhibit such a despondency, such an oppressive, over- 
whelming sense of pain and distress: I mean, it is unaccountable by 
any of the ordinary principles which apply to virtuous sufferers, who 
possess fortitude of soul. That Jesus possessed this quality in a most 


distinguished manner, we know certainly, from the whole tenor of his 
2P 


578 EXCURSUS XI. 


life, as portrayed by the evangelists. How, then, could he exhibit such 
an oppressive, overwhelming sense of dread, at the prospect of cruci- 
fixion? Thousands of men, nay, thousands of the more delicate sex, 
in prospect of like sufferings, or, apparently, greater ones, (such as the 
rack, the wheel, or flames occasion,) have been perfectly calm, collected, 
and even triumphant. The very thieves on the cross, at the same time 
with Jesus, exhibit no such signs of despondency and oppression. 
Thousands and millions of common men, without God and without hope 
in the world, have undergone sufferings greater than those of simple 
crucifixion, without even uttering a groan. Yet Jesus was not only 
supported by a consciousness of spotless innocence, but had before him 
the certain prospect of a speedy resurrection from the dead, of exalta- 
tion to the right hand of God, and of being a King and High Priest 
for ever, unto all his people. Still, he was in such an agony at the 
prospect of the cross, as to sweat as it were drops of blood, Luke xxii. 
44, And when actually enduring the suffering which he had antici- 
pated, his exclamation, Matt. xxvii. 46, shows that he had not over- 
estimated the dreadful hour. 

If Jesus died as a common virtuous sufferer, and merely as a martyr 
to the truth, without any vicarious suffering laid upon him, then is his 
death a most unaccountable event, in respect to the manner of his beha- 
viour while suffering it; and it must be admitted, that multitudes of 
humble, sinful, weak, and very imperfect disciples of Christianity, have 
surpassed their Master, in the fortitude, and collected firmness, and calm 
complacency, which are requisite to triumph over the pangs of a dying 
hour. But who can well believe this? Or who can regard Jesus as a 
simple sufferer in the ordinary way, upon the cross, and explain the 
mysteries of his dreadful horror, before, and during the hours of 
crucifixion ? . 

Such, then, was the ciAéPea, NWO, object of dread, to which our 
text adverts. But how was Jesus cicaxoveSele, delivered from it? 
Pierce, in his commentary, says, that he was delivered by being raised 
from the dead, and advanced to glory. But this would make the object 
of fear or dread to be, that he should remain in the state of the dead. 
This fear we can hardly suppose Jesus to have entertained, inasmuch as 
he had often foretold, to his disciples, not only his death, but his resur- 
rection, and exaltation to glory. Nor could it be the sufferings of the 
cross that he was delivered from, for he endured them to a dreadful 
degree. What then was it, in respect to which he was eizaxove9elc, heard 


~ 


HEBREWS VI. 4, 5, 6. 579 


or delivered? The context necessarily limits the hearing, or deliverance 
to something in his petitions which appertained to suffering, which was 
an object of dread. What could it be, but the dread of sinking under 
the agony of being deserted by his Father? Matt. xxvii. 46. Great as 
his agony was, he never refused to bear it; nor did he shrink from 
tasting the bitter cup, Luke xxi. 42. Matt. xxvi. 39. And does not 
Luke xxii. 43, explain our eicaxovaSerce ao evAaPeiac? ‘* There appeared 
unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him, évicyiwy avroy.” 
This was the only kind of deliverance he sought for, or, on the whole, 
desired ; Luke xxii. 42, hiv pop rd Sedynpa pov adda 7d adv yevéow. 
The dread in question was, like all his other sufferiags, incident to his 
human nature; and fact shows, that he suffered under it to a high 
degree; but he did not shrink from it, and so he was heard, or delivered, 
in respect to the object of his petition in regard to it. 

In the explanation of a passage so difficult, confidence would be unbe- 
coming. I can only say, If this be not the right interpretation of it, I am 
ignorant of its true meaning, and will most thankfully receive from any 
one a more probable interpretation. 


EXCURSUS XII. 


HEB. vi. 4—6.—’Advvaroy yup rove arak guwriaSévrac, yevoapévove Te 


~ ~ Ul , 

Tic Owpede émovpaviov Kal petoxyove yevnSévrac Trev- 
prarog ayiov, Kat Kady yevoapevove Qed pia, 
Suvapecc TE peedNovToc aid@voc, Kat maparecdyrac, 


ys ’ , ° , 
madu avakaiyvicey eic peravouay. 


But does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to those 
who are such only by profession? To the former, beyond all reasonable 
doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn those who were 
mere professors of Christianity, against defection and apostacy? Defec- 
tion from what? From a graceless condition, and from a state of 
hypocrisy. Such must be the answer, if mere professors, and not 
possessors, of Christianity be addressed. But mere professors, instead 
of being cautioned against defection from the state in which they 
are every where denounced in language of the severest reprobation. 
See Rev. ili. 15, 16, and the denunciations of the Saviour against the 
Pharisees. 

2P2 


580 EXCURSUS XII. 


Moreover, the language employed to describe the condition of the 
person in question, shows that the writer is addressing those whom he 
takes to be real Christians. EE. g. perdyoug.... mvetparoe ayiov, Kahov 
yevoapévove Oeov pia. Above all, radu avaxacrilew cic perdvoray; for 
how could he speak of being AGAIN renewed by repentance, if he did 
not address them as once having been renewed by it ? 

The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with which 
it is threatened, shows that something peculiar is attached to the case 
which the writer is describing. Sinners, who have been taught the 
doctrines of religion, and yet renounce their external respect for it, are 
manifestly not without the pale of God’s mercy; at least, they are not 
so considered in the Scriptures generally, and fact shows that they are 
not. It is a peculiar and aggravated case, then, which is here stated ; 
and what other case can it be, than that of apostacy from a state of 
saving knowledge of Christ and his gospel? Nor is such a case at all 
without a parallel in the Scriptures. Manifestly such an one is stated 
in Heb. x. 26—32,; also in 2 Pet. ti. 20—22; in Ezek. xviii. 24; 
xxxiil. 12, 13; iii. 20, and in many other passages of the Bible. It is 
implied in every warning, and in every commination addressed to the 
righteous; and surely the Bible is filled with both of these, from the 
beginning to the end. What is implied, when our Saviour, in his ser- 
mon on the mount, urges upon his disciples, i. e. the apostles as well as 
other disciples, (see Luke vi. 12—20,) the duty of cutting off a right 
hand, and of plucking out a right eye, that offends; and this, on penalty 
of being cast into hell? Matt. xxv. 29, 30. Is this penalty really 
threatened; or is it only a pretence of threatening, something spoken 
merely in terrorem? Can we hesitate, as to the answer which must be 
given to this question ? 

But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the impli- 
cation is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Christians are 
addressed as exposed to incur the penalty of the Divine law by sinning. 
In our text, they are surely addressed as exposed to fall into a state, in 
which there is no hope of a renewal by repentance. Whatever may be 
true, in the Divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are 
once truly regenerated, (and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit,) 
yet nothing can be plainer, than that the sacred writers have every where 
addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom 
they considered as constantly exposed to fall away, and to perish for 
ever. It cannot be denied, that all the warnings and awful commina- 


es 


HEBREWS VII. 3. 58t 


tions, (directed against cases of defection,) are addressed to Christians, 
in the New Testament, which could be addressed to them, supposing 
them to be liable, every hour, to sin beyond the hope of being renewed 
by repentance. Whatever theory may be adopted, in explanation of 
this subject, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that Christians 
are to be solemnly and earnestly warned against the danger of apostacy 
and consequent final perdition. What else is the object of the whole 
epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apostacy? In this all 
agree. But this involves all the difficulties that can be raised by 
metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the. saints. 
For why should the apostle warn true Christians (and such he surely 
believed there were among the Hebrews, ch. vi. 9,) against defection 
and perdition? My answer would be, Because God treats Christians 
as free agents, as rational beings; because he guards them against 
defection, not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to 
their natures, as free and rational agents. Let every man speculate as 
he pleases on this subject, when he addresses Christians by way of 
warning, he will inevitably fall into the same modes of address. And 


plainly he ought so to do; for thus have all the sacred writers done, and. 


thus did the Saviour himself. 


EXCURSUS XIII. 


HEB. VII. 3.—Ardrwp, apijrwp, ayeveaddynroc, pire apxiy hyepwy phre 
Zwijc Tédog Exwy, Apwpowpeévog O& TO vig Tov Oeod, pévee 


e x ’ x ‘ 
ispeve eig TO OinveKéc. 


THE description of Melchisedek, in ver. 3, has been interpreted in a 
variety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions respecting the 
person introduced here by this name. I shall very briefly exhibit some 
of them, without delaying to examine them. 

(1.) The Hieracitz, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Heres, LXVII.,) 
held Melchisedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome undertakes to confute 
them, Epist. ad Evagrium. 

(2.) The Melchisedeciani, (the author of which sect was Thecdotus, 
or Thomas,) held Melchisedek to be one of the dvvapete of God, ema- 
nated from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of which Christ 
was formed. 


a 


582 EXCURSUS XIV. 


(3.) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Heres. LXVIL. testifies,) that 
Melchisedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos ; the same who appeared 
to. Abraham, and to the patriarchs, &c. This opinion was held by 
Ambrose; and it has been defended, in recent times, by Molinzus, 
Cuneus, Gaillard, Outrein, Hottinger, Stark, Petersen, and others. 

(4.) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchisedek to be an angel. 

(5.) Others have held that Melchisedek was a man formed before the 
creation, out of spiritual and not of earthly matter. 

(6.) Melchisedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth, after the 
flood. So Hen. Hulsius. 

(7.) Melchisedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. and 
Jerus.; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Genebrard, 
Torniello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church; and among Protestants, 
Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Rungius, and others. 

(8.) Melchisedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis. 

(9.) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, Crenius, 
Buddeeus, and others. 

(10.) Melchisedek was a righteous and peaceful king, a worshipper 
and priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan; a friend of 
Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him. 

This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. xiv., 
and in Heb. vii.; and it is the only one which can be defended on any 
tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more improbable, than 
all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception of this! The most 
popular opinion among them all, viz, that Melchisedek was Christ, would 
of course force us to adopt this interpretation, viz. that ‘‘ Christ is like 
unto himself ;”’ or, that a comparison is formally instituted by our author, 
between Christ and himself ;— cujus mentio est refutatio.” 


EXCURSUS XIV. 


Hep. vil. 9, 10.—Kal, we éroc eireivy, Sua ’APpadp kat Aevi, 6 dexdrac 


x , 0 } rue oom ‘ > aed few ‘ 
ap Paver, ECEKATWTAL" ETL yap év ™) ooput TOU TaTpog 


LF cd ~ \ 
Vv, Ore ovvhvrncey ait@ 0 Medyxuoedek. 


For a Hebrew, this assertion would less need an we émoc eizeiy, than 
for us, whose modes of thinking and reasoning, in regard to genealogies, 
descent, and rank, are so very different from those of the Oriental nations. 


—eS— ee eee eee 


HEBREWS VII. 9, 10. 583 


Since Abraham was deemed, by his posterity, to be the patriarch and 
head of all his descendants, in such a sense as to hold a pre-eminence in 
rank above them, a proof that he acknowledged his inferiority to Melchi- 
sedek, by paying tithes to him, was a proof that his descendants must of 
course be inferior to Melchisedek. The statement in ver. 9 and 10, is 
built upon the Oriental modes of estimating descent and rank. Since 
Levi, who was of the posterity of Abraham, might be reckoned as then 
virtually in the patriarch; and since he descended from him, and there- 
fore could not be regarded as of a rank above him, it would follow, 
according to the Jewish mode of reasoning, that the priesthood of Mel- 
chisedek was of a rank superior to that of Levi. 

If it be said, “‘ We do not need such considerations as these, to esta- 
blish the superior priesthood of Christ; neither do we, in this manner, 
count upon genealogy, and descent, and rank:” I freely assent. But 
then I am not able to see, why this should at all detract from the pro- 
priety or the weight of the epistle to the Hebrews, viz. that the writer 
has fully met the exigencies of the case, which called forth the epistle 
itself; and met them in just such a way as was adapted to the condition 
of his readers, and the modes of reasoning to which they were accus- 
tomed. If they attached high importance and dignity to the Levitical 
priesthood, because the Levites descended from Abraham, (as they surely 
did,) and this opinion served to fill their minds with difficulty in regard 
to admitting that the priesthood of Christ could supersede that of 
Aaron ; then was it directly to the writer’s purpose to remove this pre- 
judice, and to show them, that, according to their own grounds of argu- 
ment and computation, Melchisedek must be superior to the Levitical 
priests, and to Abraham himself. If now, in doing this, (which all must 
admit was necessary and proper to be done,) the writer has met their 
prejudices with arguments specially adapted to this purpose, and the 
force of which they must acknowledge, if true to their own principles ; 
and, at the same time, he has averred nothing which is adapted to incul- 
cate error, or to mislead others who were educated in a different manner 
from the Hebrews ; then has he done what every wise and prudent man 
ought to do, under circumstances like his. And if several of his argu- 
ments are not now needed by us, and cannot well be employed by us, 
at the present time, with any particular efficacy, this makes nothing 
against his discretion, or against the validity of his reasoning. We all 
enjoy the light which has been shed around us by the whole of the New 


584 1h cn es EXCURSUS XIV. 


Testament. Of this the Hebrews had little or nothing. We are edu- 
cated with views and feelings entirely different, in many respects, from 
those in which they were brought up. We do not, therefore, need to 
be addressed and reasoned with, in al/ respects, just as they did. Many 
of their prejudices we have not; many of their doubts with respect to 
the superiority of Christianity over the Mosaic religion, we never enter- 
tained. Many things, then, which were said with great force and pro- 
priety to them, by our author, cannot be addressed to us with the same 
pertinency, nor felt with the same power. 

Let the reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews be judged of equi- 
tably, by taking into view such considerations as these, and all difficul- 
ties of any serious import, will, as I am inclined to believe, be removed 
from the mind of a serious, candid, and intelligent reader. Such con- 
siderations, too, might have saved the many znwendos, (with which we 
meet, in not a few of the recent commentaries on our epistle,) that the 
writer has built nearly all his arguments upon allegory and accommoda- 
tion ; an accommodation which allows the whole force of all the erro- 
neous methods of Jewish reasoning, and conforms to it, merely in order 
to prevent the apostacy of professed Christians. I cannot acquiesce in 
the latitude of this opinion; nor can I well admit, that a sacred wri- 
ter would make use of an argument, which in its nature he knows to be 
wholly erroneous and destitute of force, for the sake of persuading men 
to embrace Christianity, or to continue in the profession of it. Would 
not this be “ doing evil, that good might come?” But fF feel no objec- 
tion to admitting, that argumentum ad hominem may be employed, for 
the sake of confuting errorists, and exposing their inconsistency. The 
Saviour himself plainly resorts to this, in some cases ; see Matt. xii. 27. 
Luke xi. 19. So in our epistle, it cannot be deemed irrelevant or impro 
per, if the writer shows the Jews, that, from their own modes of counting 
descent, and reckoning precedence in regard to rank, Melchisedek, (and 
consequently Jesus,) was as a priest of an order superior to the Levites. 
For substance, this is done, in the chapter under examination. Yet 
there is nothing conceded here, which can in any way endanger the prin- 
ciples of truth. At the same time, after the explanations that have 
been made, it is hazarding nothing to say, that we now have more con- 
vincing arguments than those here used, to establish the superiority o 
Christ’s priesthood. But let it be remembered, we owe them to the 
New Testament, which we have in our hands, and which the Hebrews 


HEBREWS VIII. 5. 585 


had not. Many things, therefore, needed by them in their condition, 
and with the greatest propriety urged upon them, are less applicable 
and less important to us, merely because our circumstances differ so 
much from theirs. 

If the reader wants confirmation, in regard to the statement above 
made, of the Jewish views respecting the precedency of Abraham, let 
him peruse Matt. iii. 9. John viii, 52—58. Luke xvi. 22—25. 





EXCURSUS XV. 


HEB. Vil. 5.—"Opa yap, gna, woujone wayra Kara Toy TUTOY Toy SerySévra 


oot €v TP Oper. 


Ir has been asked, in what was this rioc exhibited to Moses? Was 
it by ocular vision; or by suggestion to the mind; or by words com- 
municated to Moses, descriptive of the form in which the tabernacle 
should be constructed? The answer to all such questions is very easy ; 
viz. that the subject is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, so 
that we can know nothing more respecting it, than what Moses himself 
has told us. But this is merely an assertion of the fact, that the rvoc 
was exhibited to him. He says nothing at all of the manner in which it 
was exhibited. Consequently, the fact is all that we can know: and 
surely it is all that we need to know; for of what importance to us can 
the manner be, in which this revelation was made? The passage in 
Acts vii. 44, which speaks of the rizov that Moses éwpaxer, determines 
nothing, as it is not said whether he saw in a bodily or mental manner ; 
and the word éwpdkee is plainly applicable to either. In 1 Chron. 
xxviii. 19, David, after having drawn a plan for the temple, says, All, 
which is in the writing from the hand of the Lord, i.e. made by 
Divine assistance ; own, he taught me, even all the work, MIAN, 
rimov, i.e. of the plan. Yet there was no ocular disclosure. Conse- 
quently, the words used in our text will not determine the manner of the 
communication to Moses; and therefore we are not to consider it as 
capable of being definitely determined. ; 

It follows, of course, that the exhibition of a visible temple in heaven, 
to the view of Moses, of a temple having form and locality, cannot be 
assumed ; unless we build upon that which has no foundation to support 


586 EXCURSUS XV. 


it. The most that we can know of this subject is, that on Mount Sinai, 
the Lord revealed to Moses the rizoy of the tabernacle which he was to 
build; and that this is merely a trddevypa and occa of the heavenly one. 
Is it a ixddevypa, then, in a material sense, or in a spiritual, moral 
one? In the latter, without any reasonable doubt; for so the whole 
nature of the argument leads us to conclude. The apostle is not 
comparing one material tabernacle on earth, with another more 
magnificent one, of the same kind, in heaven; but a material earthly 
one, with one which the Lord made, which is ov yeporoinroc, and ov. 
ravrne Tic Kricewc, ch. ix. 11, i.e. which is spiritual and heavenly in its. 
nature. The whole representation, then, comes to this: ‘‘ In heaven 
are truly and really all those things which the Jewish tabernacle and 
temple, with all their rites and offerings, only adumbrated. What is 
there, is reality in the highest and noblest sense; what is here, is. 
comparatively only shadow and effigy. Christ does really there, what 
the high-priest has been accustomed to do figuratively and symbolically 
here. The temple here faintly represents (is trdderypa and oxie of), real 
spiritual existences and occurrences there.” 

The very nature of the heavenly world, and of the apostle’s arzument, 
is sufficient to show, that this is all that can be rationally deduced from 
the language which he employs. It would be just as rational to main- 
tain, that God has a local habitation, and a corporeal form visible to the 
eye, because the Scriptures speak of his fixed dwelling place in heaven 
( M2), and of his hands, and eyes, and face, and heart, as it would 
be to suppose that the temple above, in which Christ ministers, possesses 
form, and is composed of material substance, like that which was built 
by the Jews. This was merely oxia; that is adySea, izdoracte, i. e. of 
heavenly, spiritual, divine trdcraccc, not earthly, visible, local matter. 

How to build the earthly tabernacle, Moses was instructed on the 
Mount. But whether a form of the same was presented to his vision, 
bodily or mental; or whether he was taught by words, what the rizoc 
should be, does not, (as we have seen), appear from Scripture; nor is it 
important for us to know. Enough to know, that the earthly tabernacle 
is related to the heavenly one, only as shadow to substance ; and conse- 
quently, that our great High Priest above, is exalted to a rank unspeak- 
ably higher than that ofthe Jewish high priest. 

All which Moses and the people of Israel saw upon Mount Sinai, the 
darkness, and smoke, the fire, the cloud, and the lightnings; the voice 
of the trumpet which they heard, and the quaking of the earth which 





HEBREWS Ix. 4. 587 


they felt, (Exod. xix. 17—20; ch. xx. 18—21; xxiv. 1, 2.9, 10.15—18; 
Heb. xii. 18—21); were manifestly symbols merely of the Divine 
presence, adapted to inspire the people with reverence and awe. In the 
same manner, the JAF), or rumoc of the tabernacle to be built, was a 
symbol of what is heavenly or divine. It may just as well be argued 
from the clouds, and darkness, and fire, and lightning, and thunder, and 
earthquake of Sinai, that all these belong materially and formally to 
the heavenly world, as that the rimog exhibited to Moses was an actually 
visible, material part of heaven. 

If, now, the tabernacle built by Moses, the greatest of all the Jewish 
prophets, Heb. iii. 2, was nothing more than an dyriruroc of that in 
heaven, ch. ix. 23, 24; a mere oxca of it, ch. vill. 5; then the temple 
built by Solomon, which was only an imitation of this, 1 Kings, viii. 1O—19; 
1 Chron. xxviii. 19; and that in after times, built by Zerubbabel, Ezrav. 1, 
seq. and which was less magnificent, ch. ili. 12, 13; must also be merely 
ayriruroe and oxai of that temple, of which Jesus is the priest. Conse- 
quently, the greater dignity of his priestly office may be obviously 
inferred, from this comparison. 


EXCURSUS XVI. 


HEB. IX. 4.—Xpvoovy éyovoa Supuarhpior. 


THERE Is great difficulty and much perplexity, among commentators, 
im regard to the Svsuartpuoy here mentioned. Moses makes no mention 
of such a sacred utensil, as appertaining to the most holy place; neither 
does the description of Solomon’s temple, (modelled after the taber- 
nacle,) contain any information respecting it. Ovpuearjpeov, in its 
general sense, indicates any thing which contains Supiapa, or incense ; 
so that it may be applied either to an altar of incense, or to any pot 
or vessel, adapted for offering incense by burning it. Josephus applies 
Sugarijpwov to the altar of incense, Antiq. III. 6. 8; and so some 
have applied the word, in the phrase under consideration. But it is a 
strong, if not conclusive objection to this, that the altar of incense was 
before the veil of the most holy place, and not within it, Exod. xxx, 
1—6; ch. xl. 5, 26. Moreover, this altar is called, in Hebrew, 
NWP maw, Exod. xxvii. 25. 2 Chron. xxvi. 19.16; NWP? Mar, 


588 EXCURSUS XVI. 


Exod. xl. 5; or, np WP TAH, ch. xxx. 1. In Greek, it is named 
Suvowacripuy, and Suovacripioy Aupaiacene. On this altar, moreover, 
daily offerings of incense were to be made, both morning and evening, 
ch. xxx. 1—8. The horns of it, once in each year, were to be sprinkled 
with blood, viz. on the great day of atonement ver. 10. But I am 
unable to find any place which declares that this altar was carried 
within the veil, on the day just named, by the priest who offered incense 
before the Lord. On the contrary, the incense offered on that day 
was strewed on a vessel of burning coals, or a censer, i, e. pan, or fire- 
pan, which the priest held in his hand, and carried with him into the 
most holy place, Lev. xvi. 12—14. The name of the vessel was MT, 
ver. 12. Exod. xxvii. 3; ch. xxxviii. 3. 1 Kings, vil. 50. 2 Chron. ‘iv: 
22. In ch. xxvi. 19, this vessel is named JOP", and again in Ezek. 
vii. 11; in both which places the Septuagint have Supwarhpwv. Now, 
nothing can be plainer, than that the MD and TOP were dif- 
rent from the altar of incense, niwp7 mar, Upon this, on the 
morning and evening of every day, offerings of incense were made: 

and this altar stood before the veil, Exod. xxx. 6—8. On the day of 
atonement, also, the horns of it were to be sprinkled with blood, 
ver. 10; ch. xl. 5, 26. But the incense before the Lord, which was 
to be offered in the inner sanctuary, was offered upon a nM, pan of 
burning coals, Lev. xvi. 12. Uzziah was about to burn incense in this 
manner, when the priests withstood him, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16—19. Com- 
pare also the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. x. 1. 

That the incense altar was stationary, is plain from the dimensions 
assigned to it in Exod. xxx. 1, 2; viz. a cubit (i. e. 1 1 foot) long, 
and broad; and two cubits in height. The removal of this by the 
high priest, into the most holy place, is out of the question, when we 
consider that it was made of solid materials, probably metal of some 
kind. But the censers (fire-pans) were hand utensils, constructed for 
the very purpose of taking coals from the altar of burnt-offering, 
(where the fire was never suffered to become extinguished,) for the 
various uses of the temple, Lev. xvi. 12. The whole difficulty then, in 
our verse, amounts to this, viz, whether the ypvoovr Supcariptoy, here 
mentioned, was laid up or deposited in the most holy place. That 
there were several Supuarijpea, or in, is certain, from Exod. xxvii. 3; 
ch. xxxvili. 3. That the MAND, or Supearijpwr, which was employed 
by the high priest, was ypucovr, i. e. gilded, or (if you will) golden, is 
highly probable; indeed, one would suppose quite certain, seeing that 


HEBREWS Ix. 4. 589 


the altar of incense, (which was designed only for the every-day’s 
offermg of incense,) was to be overlaid with pure gold, Exod. xxx. 3. 
Much more may we well suppose, that the censer, (carried by the high 
priest into the &yca a&yiwy, on the most solemn of all days, viz. the 
day of atonement for the whole nation, was covered with gold, i. e. was 
xevoovy, as the apostle calls it. Moses, indeed, has not given us any 
particular description of such a censer ; nor is it mentioned particularly 
in the description of Solomon’s temple ; nor is it any where said in the 
Old Testament, that such a censer was laid up in the most holy place. 
But, as nothing can be more probable than that the censer was ypuaody ; 
so nothing can be more probable than that it was deposited in the 
inner sanctuary. That a censer used for the most sacred of all the 
temple rites, on a day the most solemn of all the Jewish festival days, 
should be used for the common and every-day occasions of temple 
service, is highly improbable ; especially when we consider, that every 
thing pertaining to the service of the inner sanctuary was regarded in 
a light that corresponded with the designation of that place, viz. aya 
ayiwy, or DwIp wap. 

Besides, the writer of our epistle, so intimately acquainted with every 
thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and, indeed, to the whole 
Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed to have mistaken the 
fact, relative to the materials of which the censer used on the great 
day of expiation was made, or to the place where it was deposited. 
How easily would those whom he addressed have detected his error, 
and been led, of course, to think lightly of his accuracy, when matters 
so obvious escaped his notice! In short, all the objection against the 
account of our author is, that the Old Testament is silent in regard to 
the two particulars about the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was 
xpuoovy, and that it was deposited in the aya dyiwy. But surely 
silence, in such a case, is no contradiction; and the nature of the 
whole case is such, there can be no rational doubt that our author has 
made a correct statement. The want of correctness here, would have 
argued an ignorance on his part, which would have destroyed all his 
credit with those whom he addressed. 

If any apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, any 
one may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning the 
difficulties which have been made about it, and the charges of inac- 
curacy, or failure of memory, which have been made against the writer 
of our epistle, on account of the clause xpvaovy éxovoa Suprariproy. 


590 EXCURSUS XVII 


EXCURSUS XVIL. 


Hes, 1x. 4.—'Ey ) ordpvog ypuoi Exovea 76 padvva, Kal } papcog Aapwy 


i BXaorhoaca, cal ai rrakec Tijg Ocadhene 


But there is another difficulty, in regard to the phrase under consider- 
ation. It is said, 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Chron. ¥. 10, that “ there was 
nothing in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put therein at 
Horeb.”” This, no doubt, is true; but our author is speaking, in Heb. 
ix. 4, of the tabernacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, and not 
of the temple built some five hundred years afterwards; still less, of the 
second temple, which, after the burning of the first by Nebuchadnezzar, 
must have lacked even the tables of the testimony or law. These were 
probably destroyed at the time when the first temple was consumed ; 
since we have no authentic intelligence respecting them afterwards. It 
is probable, too, that the first temple lacked both the pot of manna, and 
the rod of Aaron; at least, we have no account of their being deposited 
init. The probability is, that the ark, during its many removals by the 
Israelites after it was constructed, and in particular during its captivity 
by the Philistines, 1 Sam. iv. 11; v. 1; vi. 1. 21, was deprived of these 
sacred deposits; for we hear no more concerning them. Be this as it 
may, our author is fully justified, when, in describing the tabernacle, he 
attributes to it what the Pentateuch does; and that the pot of manna 
and Aaron’s rod were laid up in the most holy place, and in the ark of 
the covencnt, may be seen in Exod. xvi. 32—34. Num. xvii. 10; (xvii. 25.) 
In both these passages, the Hebrew runs thus: Lazd up DITDit 2257, 
before the testimony, i.e. either before the ark containing the testimony ; 
or (which is altogether more probable,) before the testimony itself, 1. e. 
the two tables which were in the ark. Consequently, they were laid up 
with the testimony, i. e. the two tables; and the account given by our 
author is strictly correct. 

It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Moses 
that he is describing throughout. As this was patterned after that which 
Moses ‘‘ had seen upon the mount,” and was built by workmen who had 
particular Divine assistance, Exod. xxxvi. 1, it was, of course, regarded 
by the Jews as the most perfect structure of all that had been erected for 
the worship of God. Perfect as it was, however, the apostle labours to 
show, that it was a mere shadow or image of the heavenly tabernacle, in 
which Jesus ministers. 





HEBREWS Ix. 14. 591 


EXCURSUS XVIII. 


HEB. Ix. 14. —“O¢ dua mvevparoe aiwvtov éavroy mpoohveyxev Gpwpov 
T@ Oey. 


Aca mvevparog aiwviov is a difficult phrase, about the meaning of which 
a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some understand it of 
the Holy Spirit; and some manuscripts and versions read éy/ov instead 
of aiwyiov. But in what respect the Holy Spirit rendered the offering of 
Christ perfect, (4uwpoy,) it would be difficult to show from other parts 
of the Scriptures; which contain, so far as I have been able to discover, 
no assertions of a doctrine analogous to this. Others, as Ernesti, Capell, 
Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, Carpzoff, &c. understand it of the Divine nature 
of Christ. But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the 
highest value, on account of the dignity of his person, in consequence 
of the higher nature which dwelt in him; yet the sacred writers represent 
him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in his Divine, 
Heb. ii. 14. 17, 18. Col. i. 21, 22. Phil. ii. 6—8. “Heb. x. 5. 10. 1 Pet. 
ii. 24. But, independently of this consideration, instances are wanting 
satisfactorily to prove, that rvevpa ayy, or aiwywy, when applied to 
Christ, designates simply his Divine nature as such. 

Others consider rvedpa aiwroy as designating the idea of a victim, the 
sacrifice of which had perpetual efficacy to procure the pardon of sin; 
which is the ground of the epithet, ai@ov. Thus Noesselt,-in his essay 
on this passage, contained in his Opuscula. But in this case, no usus 
loquendi can be alleged, to justify such an interpretation. 

Others, as Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Jaspis, &c. 
consider rvedpa aiwyioy as endless or immortal life, comparing it with 
ch. vii. 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable nature of the 
beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are mentioned in the pre- 
ceding verse. The antithesis would then be thus: ‘If mere perishable 
brutes, slain in sacrifice, effected external sanctification; how much 
more shall the offermg of Christ, endowed with eternal life, or, with an 
immortal spirit, purify the conscience,” &c. To this view of the subject 
I was myself inclined, before I made special investigation of the word 
zvevpa, as applied to Christ. In doing this, I found, beside the present 
instance, two other cases, in which it is pretty evidently applied to desig- 
nate his glorified state, in the world of spirits, in distinction from his 


§92 EXCURSUS XVII. 


state of incarnation and humiliation. Thus, Rom. i. 3, 4, cara mvetpa 
dywotrne designates a state of distinction from kar& sdoxi, the human 
nature of Christ, that was descended from David; é& orépparoc Aa/id, 
KATH CAPKA seeee. VOU Oeod ev Ovvdpet, Kara wrevpa. Kara rredpa 
aywavrne here designates the condition, in which Christ was the exalted 
and powerful Son of God, viov Ocov év dvvdpe, compare Phil. ii. 8, 9. 
Heb. ii. 9, 10; i.e. it is descriptive of that spiritual majesty, aywovvn, 
ants fh y, or exaltation, which belongs to the Saviour in the heavenly 
world. So 1 Pet. iii. 18, SavatwSele [Xpeordc] pév capkt, Cworoneic dé 
mvevpart, 1. e. in his incarnate nature, subjected to sufferings and death ; 
in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or condition, enjoying happiness and 
glory. So in 1 Cor. xv. 45, the last Adam, i. e. Christ, is called rvedpa 
Zworowdy, in distinction from the Puy) Géca attributed to the first Adam. 
This could not be because Christ had an immortal soul, and Adam had 
only a living aximal soul; for Adam too was immortal. It would seem, 
here, that wvevpa and vy) both designate a spiritual or immortal 
nature; but wvevua here designates such a nature of a higher order ; 
and the antithesis is more fully made by Gwozowty and fécar, life-giving 
and living. 

With these texts I am now inclined to believe the one in our verse 
is to be classed; and that the sense is to be given to it, which I have 
just expressed, viz. in his eternal state or condition, i. e. his heavenly 
one, Christ presented his offering, &c. As to da, there is no difficulty 
in making such a translation of it. It is frequently used with the 
genitive in order to denote the quality, condition, circumstances, or 
means, that have relation to any thing or person; e. g. 2 Cor. ili. 11, 
dua ddéne, 1. q. év Odéy in the other clause of the verse, and in ver. 8, 9, 
and equivalent plainly to évdogoc. So Rom. ii. 27, dua ypapparoc, with 
the Scripture, i.e. having the Scripture, diva mepiropijc, with circum- 
cision, 1. e. circumcised ; Rom. iv. 11, ou’ akpoBuvariac, uncircumcised ; 
Phil. i. 20, etre Ova Cwife eire dua Savarov, whether living or dying. 
Compare also dua in Rom. xiv. 20; ch. vii. 25. Heb. xii. 1. See 
Wahl on dua, No. 3, a. b. Matthie, § 580. e. 

In confirmation of this exegesis, it may be added, that in ver. 11, 12, 
the blood of Christ is expressly armed to be offered by him in the 
heavenly sanctuary. If ver. 14 coutains substantially a recognition ot 
the same or the like sentiment, (which it seems to do,) then dia rvev- 
faroc aiwyiov may well refer to the eternal spiritual nature or condition 
of the Saviour in glory, who presented himself, in the heavenly temple, 


ee 


HEBREWS 1x. 28. 593 


with such a nature, as a spotless offering to God, and procured that 
pardon and purification which the sinner needs. With this interpreta- 
tion Storr substantially accords, who renders ca wvedparog aiwvlov by 
‘© in dem Zustande der ewigen Herrlichkeit,” or ‘ kraft seines herr- 
lichen Zustandes,” in the state of eternal glory, or by virtue of his 
glorious state. That Christ was himself both the offering and the priest 
who presented it, is plain from Heb. ix. 11—14, and Eph. v. 2. 
Heb. x. 10. 

Respecting a phrase so difficult as the above, much confidence would 
not be becoming. I have laid before the reader different interpretations ; 
and if he is dissatisfied with that which I have preferred, he can choose 
another that will give him more satisfaction. 


EXCURSUS XIX. 


HEB. 1X. 28.—Otrw kal 6 Xpiorde dak mrpocevexSelc, cic TO Todo 


aveveyKety apapriac. 


‘THE importance of the phrase, and the many constructions put upon it 
that are inconsistent with the wsus loquendi of the sacred writers, render 
it desirable accurately to determine its meaning. To bear sin, then, is 
to suffer the punishment due to it, i. e. to take upon one’s self the con- 
sequences of sin, or to subject one’s self to its consequences. The phrase 
is sometimes used for exposure to the consequences of sin; e. g. Lev. 
v. 17.1, compare ver. 3—5; ch. vil. 18. To bear iniquity, (TY, NW) 
means also, fo be cut off from the congregation of God’s people, Lev. 
xx. 17. Numb. ix. 13; it means, to die or perish, Numb. xviii. 22. 32. 
Exod. xxviii. 43. Lev. xxiv. 15, 16. So it is sometimes employed as a 
general expression, to designate any kind of sufferings borne or inflicted 
in consequence of sin; as in Numb. xiv. 33, 34, where, in the thirty- 
third verse, Ye shall bear your whoredoms, means, Ye shall bear the 
consequences of them ; just as in ver. 34, Ye shall bear your iniquities, 
means, Ye shall bear or endure the consequences of them. Thus is 
the phrase employed where the subject in question is one’s own sins. 
But, 

2. To bear the sins of others, is to bear or endure the suffering or 
penalty due to them. So in Heb. ix. 26, dyapriag means the conse- 

2Q 


594 EXCURSUS XIX. 


quences of sin, or penalty due to it. In Lam. y. 7, Jeremiah represents 
the afflicted people of Israel as saying, ‘‘ Our fathers have sinned, and 
are no more, and we have borne their iniqutties,” q7ad or rw. So 
in Ezek. xviii. 19, 20, to bear the iniquity of another, means, to die or 
perish on his account, ver. 20, compare ver. 17. Isa. lili. 4, he bore our 
distresses, nv aon, he carried [or bore] our sorrows, 1 IND 22D 
is explained in ver. ‘5, by he was wounded for our transgressions, 

INYWH 22m, he was smitten on account of our transgressions, 

PV ay ya) OTD. So NWI means, to. suffer, Prov. xix. 19. Micah 
vii. 9; as does’ the corresponding Greek word Saordéw, in Gal. v. 10, 

and ¢épw, in Heb. xill. 13. ’Avagépw has the same sense as ¢gépw and 
PaordZw, when used in such a connexion, and corresponds to the Hebrew 
Nw) and 53D, So Peter says of Jesus, avfveyxe—rac dpuapriac ipor, 
pahis own body, on the cross, 1 Pet. ii. 24; to explain which he adds, 
by whose stripes ye are healed; i. e. Jesus suffered the penalty due to 
our sins, in his own body, on the cross; and, by his sufferings, our 
obligation to the penalty ceases. The passage is quoted from Isa. lit. 
4, 5, which has the same meaning as ch. lili. 11,12; and here we have, 
He bore their sins, 2D) ony, he bore [or carried] the sins of many, 
NY] DAT NOM. A comparison ‘of all these instances, (more might be 
adduced ,) will serve to show how plain and uniform the scripture idiom 
is, in respect to the sense attached to the phrase bearing the sin either 
of one’s self or of others. It always means, either ‘‘ actual suffering of 
the consequences due to sin,” or, ‘“‘ exposure to suffer them, obligation 
to suffer them.” 

That dpapriac, Heb. ix. 28, may mean, and does mean, the conse- 
quences of sin, or penalty of it, is plain, (1.) From the impossibility, 
that the passage here can have any other sense. The moral turpitude 
of our sins, Jesus did not take upon himself; nor remove it, (as it is in 
itself considered ;) but the consequences of them he prevented, by his 
own sufferings. (2.) The corresponding Hebrew words, DOI, vy, and 
WE, all mean, punishment or penalty of sin, as well as sin, or iniquity 
itself. 

The sentiment of the clause, then, clearly is, that Jesus, by his death, 
(which could take place but once,) endured the penalty that our sins 
deserved, or bore the sorrows due to us. But this general expression is 
not to be understood, as if the writer meant to say, with philosophical 
precision, that the sufferings of Jesus were in all respects, and considered 
in every point of view, an exact and specific quid pro quo, as it regards 


_ 


—————e oe ee 


HEBREWS x. 5. 595 


the penalty threatened against sin. A guilty conscience, the Saviour had 
not; eternal punishment, he did not suffer; despair of deliverance, he 
did not entertain. It is altogether unnecessary to suppose that the 
writer meant to be understood here with metaphysical exactness. But, 
that vicarious suffering is here designated, seems to be an unavoidable 
conclusion, as well from the usus loquendi of the Scriptures, as from the 
nature of the argument through the whole of ch. ix. and x. 





EXCURSUS XxX. 


Hes. x. 5.—Zépa cé warnpriow poor. Ps. xl. 7. » rae?) DIN, i.e. 
mine ears hast thou opened. ; ; 


But how could the LXX. render the Hebrew expression here, by 
e@ua Karnpricw por? And how could the apostle follow them in this 
rendering ; and even build an argument on such a translation, in order 
to establish the proposition, that the blood of goats and bullocks could 
not avail to take away sin? Questions, which have exceedingly per- 
plexed commentators, and over which most of them have chosen to pass 
in silence. It is, indeed, much better to be silent, than to speak that 
which is erroneous, or will mislead the unwary. Still the ingenious 
inquirer, who wishes to see every difficulty fairly met, is offended with 
silence on a subject of such a nature, and cannot well resist a secret 
inclination to attribute it.more to want of knowledge, or to want of 
candour, than to real prudence and discretion. At least, we ought 
freely to confess our ignorance where we feel it, and not affect to be 
profoundly wise about things of which we may not venture to speak, 
or are not able to speak, either to our own satisfaction, or to that 
of others. 

Cappell, Ernesti, and some other critics, strive to maintain the pro- 
bability, that the Septuagint reading in Ps. xl. 7, was formerly driov 
Karnoriow proc, Which by some accident has been changed, and the 
text of the apostle, in the New Testament, adapted to it. But of this 
there is no proof. Indeed, there is manifest proof that the apostle 
originally wrote ca in yer. 5, by a comparison with it of his expres- 
sion in yer. 10. 

2Q2 


596 EXCURSUS XxX. 


The difficulty cannot be met, then, by a change of the text; much 
less by such a change, when it is not authorised by any of the laws of 
sound criticism, and is against the context. 

Were it not that the Septuagint contains the expression o@ma xarno- 
riow pot, 1 should be inclined to believe that it was merely a paren- 
thetic circumstance, thrown in by our author, in order to explain the 
object of his quotation. In sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight, 
says the personage who is speaking. But what is to take their place? 
is the natural inquiry. What shall be substituted for them? Zépa 
Karnpriow prot, is the answer, i. e. my body, which I am to offer asa 
sacrifice, is to come in their place; this will be a sacrifice acceptable, 
efficacious. In short, if the Septuagint did not contain the expression, 
we might conclude that the writer of the epistle added it in order to 
convey the sentiment of the whole passage in some such manner as the 
following : ‘‘ In sacrifice and oblation I have no pleasure ;” my hody 
hast thou adapted, viz. for oblation, i. e. as if the writer had said, 
“ The speaker means, that his own body was to take the place of sacri- 
fice and oblation.”’ 

But as the Septuagint text now is, we are compelled to believe that 
the apostle has quoted it, and applied it to his purpose. Has he then 
made any substantial part of his argument to depend on the clause in 
question? An important inquiry, which may go some way towards 
removing the difficulties that the clause presents. 

In ver. 8, 9, the writer presents the argument deduced from his 
quotation, in the following manner. ‘< First, he says, sacrifice, and 
offering, and holocausts, and sin-offerings, thou hast no delight in, 
neither dost thou desire; (which are offered agreeably to the require- 
ments of the law;) next, he says, Lo, I come to do thy will! 
He abolishes the first, then, in order to establish the second.” That 
is, he sets aside the efficacy of ritual sacrifices and offerings, and 
establishes the efficacy of a Saviour’s obedience unto death; compare 
Bh ai. /8: 

Now, in this conclusion, there is nothing dependent on the clause 
vopa karypticw pot. The antithesis of legal offerings, is doing the will 
of God, ver. 9, viz. the obedience of the Saviour in offering up his 
body, ver. 20. This last verse describes, indeed, the manner in which 
the obedience in question was rendered. But the argument, as expressed 
in the eighth and ninth verses, is not made to depend on the manner 
of the obedience; for the object of the writer here, is to show the 


a 


HEBREWS x, 5. 597 


nullity of the Levitical sacrifices for spiritual purposes, and the fact that 
the Old Testament discloses this, and intimates their abolition. 

I must regard, then, the use of coda carnoriow por by the apostle, as 
rather an zncidental circumstance, than as an essential one. He found 
it in the text of the Septuagint which he used. It was well adapted 
for the particular purpose he had in view; as it turned the mind of the 
reader to Christ, as the true expiatory victim, rather than to the sacri- 
fices prescribed by the law. It was altogether accordant with the 
general tenor of the passage which he was citing, and the conclusion 
which he was to adduce from it. But he does not make (as we have 
seen) the force of his argument to depend upon it. Were this the fact, 
and were we to suppose (and we have no critical evidence for believing 
the contrary) that the Hebrew text stood, in his day, as it now stands ; 
it would be a case in point, to prove the extent to which the sacred 
writers have deemed it proper to employ the argumentum ad hominem, 
and adapt their reasonings to the modes of explaining the Scriptures 
practised by their readers. As it now is, I do not feel that much 
dependence can be placed on it, to establish a proposition of this nature; 
for, on the whole, I must view the employment of the phrase, as found 
in the Septuagint, rather incidental, than essential to the writer’s pur- 
pose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the case before us, viz. 
that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all respects to adhere 
to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum rather than ad 
literam. Even copa carnoriow proc may be brought within the general 
limits of an ad sensum quotation, as Storr has remarked ; for preparing 
a body, in this case, is preparmg it for an offering—to be devoted to 
the service of God. Now, this is a species of obedience of the highest 
nature. If a body were given to the Saviour, which he voluntarily 
devoted to death, Phil. ii. 8, then were his ears indeed opened, or, he was 
truly obedient. The implication of the phrase cpa karnpriow pot, in 
the connexion where it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim, 
instead of the legal sacrifices; of course, a devotedness of the highest 
nature is implied. Ad sensum, then, in a general point of view, the 
text may be regarded as cited; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the 
New Testament writers aim. 

One more difficulty, however, remains. It is alleged, that Ps. xl. 
cannot well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to David 
himself. How then could the writer of our epistle appeal to it, for a 
proof that the obedience unto death, of the Messiah, was to accomplish 


§98 EXCURSUS XxX. 


what the Jewish sacrifices could not, viz. a removal of the penalty due 
to sin? 

That there are difficulties in the way of interpreting this psalm, as 
originally having had direct respect to the Messiah, every intelligent 
and candid reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1.) What was the 
deliverance from impending destruction, which Ps. xl. 2—3, [1, 2,] 
describes? On what occasion was the song of gratitude for deliverance 
uttered? ver. 4—6, [3—5.] (2.) How could the iniquities of him, 
«« who knew no sin,” take hold of him? ver, 13. [12.] (3.) How could 
the Messiah anticipate such troubles, as are alluded to in ver. 12—14. 
|11—13;] and particularly, how can he, who, when suspended on the 
cross, prayed that his enemies might be forgiven, be supposed to have 
uttered such imprecations as are contained in ver. 15, 16. [14, 15]? 

To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some have 
supposed, that the first and last parts of the psalm in question relate to 
David, while ver. 7-—9. [6—8,] contain a prediction respecting the 
Messiah; at least, that they are spoken concerning him. But it is not 
easy to conceive how more than one person can be spoken of throughout 
the psalm, it being all of the same tenor, and throughout appearing to 
be made up of words spoken by a suffering person, who had indeed been 
delivered from some evils, but was still exposed to many more. 

Others have maintained, that the whole psalm relates only to David ; 
and that consequently the writer of our epistle accommodates his argument 
to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, probably current at the time 
when he wrote. Among these are some, whose general views of theology 
are far from coinciding with those of the neological class of critics. But 
there is a difficulty in regard to this, which must be felt by every reflect- 
ing and sober-minded man. How could the apostle employ as sound 
and scriptural argument, adapted to prove the insufficiency of the Jewish 
sacrifices, an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical, but with- 
out any solid foundation? And how could he appeal to it, as exhibiting 
the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only person whom 
it concerned? If the Old Testament has no other relation to the Messiah, 
than what is built upon interpretations that are the offspring of fancy 
and ingenious allegory; then how can we show, that the proof of a 
Messiah deduced from it is any thing more than fanciful or allegorical ? 
And was it consistent with sound integrity, with sincere and upright 
regard to truth, to press the Hebrews with an argument, which the 
writer himself knew to have no solid basis? Or if he did not know this, 


Ee 


HEBREWS x. 5. 599 


then in what light are we to regard him, as an interpreter of Scripture, 
and a teacher of Christian principles ? 

Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it difficult to 
admit the opinion under examination, without abandoning some of the 
fundamental principles, on which our confidence in the real verity of the 
word of God rests. 

Nor does that scheme of interpretation, which admits a double sense 
of Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains so much of 
the psalm, as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal 
application to him; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the 
Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great saving of labour in investi- 
gation, and of perplexity and difficulty, might apparently be made, if we 
could adopt such an expedient! But the consequences of admitting 
such a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a 
double sense, unless it is a book of designed entgmas? And even this 
has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say, Azo 
te, Pyrrhe, Romanos posse vincere; but can such an eguivoque be 
admissible into the oracles of the living God? And if a literal sense, 
and an occult sense can, at one and the same time, and by the same 
words, be conveyed ; who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult 
sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none 
that belong to human language; for other books than the Bible have 
not a double sense attached to them. 

For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double 
sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the funda- 
mental principles of interpretation, by which we arrive at established 
conviction and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless ocean of ima- 
girration and conjecture, without rudder or compass. 

If it be said, that the author of our epistle was inspired, and therefore 
he was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. xl. 7—9, [6—8 ;] 
the answer is obvious. The writer, in deducing his argument from these 
verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of them which his readers 
would recognize, and to which, he took it for granted, they would pro- 
bably consent. Otherwise, the argument could have contained nothing 
in it of a convincing nature to them; as the whole of it must have rested, 
in their minds, upon the bare assertion and imagination of the writer. 

May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of accommo- 
dating the language of the Old Testament, in order to express the 
writer’s own views? Such cases are indeed frequent in the New Testa- 


600 EXCURSUS XX. 


ment. God says by the prophet Hosea, ‘‘ When Israel was a child, 
then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt,” ch. xi. 1. Now, this 
is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the 
flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, 
‘“‘ This took place, so that this passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an 
accomplishment, iva zAnowSn, x. 7. d.” Now, here is, evidently, nothing 
more than a similarity of events; so that what is said of Israel, God’s 
son in ancient times, might be affirmed of his Son Jesus, in later times, 
in a still higher sense, and in a similar manner. May not the writer of 
our epistle have accommodated the language of Ps. xl., in a similar way ? 
May he not have merely expressed his own views in language borrowed 
from the Old Testament, without intending to aver, that (as it stands in 
the original Scriptures) it has the same meaning which he now gives to it? 

This would indeed relieve, in a great measure, the difficulties under 
which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the nature of 
the writer’s argument seems to forbid the admission of it. He had 
asserted (which was entirely opposed to the feelings and belief of most 
Jewish readers) that ‘ the blood of bulls and goats could not take away 
sin.” What was the proof of this? His own authority; or that of the 
Jewish Scriptures? Clearly he makes an appeal to the latter; and 
argues, that, by plain implication, they teach the inefficacy of Jewish 
sacrifices, and the future rejection of them. Consequently, we cannot 
admit here a mere expression of the writer’s own sentiments in language 
borrowed from the Old Testament. 

Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in regard to 
the subject under consideration ; which is, that Ps. xl. relates throughout 
to the Messiah. This is certainly a possible case. I mean that there is 
no part of this psalm which may not be interpreted so as to render its 
relation to the Messiah possible, without doing violence to the laws of 
language and interpretation. To advert to the objections suggested on 
page 398: it may be replied to the first, that the enemies of the Saviour 
very often plotted against his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and 
that he, as often, escaped out of their hands until he voluntarily gave up 
himself to death. The thanksgivings, in the first part of Ps. xl., may 
relate to some or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of 
our epistle represents the psalm as spoken when the Messiah was 
eicepxdpevoc eic Tov Kdapor, coming, [1.e. about tocome,] into the world, 
and therefore before his birth; the answer is, that the phrase by no 
means implies, of necessity, that the Messiah uttered the sentiments here 


HEBREWS x. 5, 601 


ascribed to him, before his incarnation, but during it. Eicepydpevoe, 
entering, being entered, or when he had entered into the world, he said, 
Ovo, «.7.d. That the Saviour prayed to God, gave thanks, made sup- 
plications and deprecations, as men do, need not be proved to any 
reader of the evangelists. On what particular occasion in the Messiah’s 
life, the words in Ps. xl. 7—9, were uttered, it is needless to inquire. 
Indeed, that they were ever formally and ad literam uttered, it is quite 
needless to show; inasmuch as all which the psalmist intends by the 
expression of them is, that they should be descriptive of his true cha- 
racter; which would be such, that we might well suppose him to utter 
them, or, that they would be appropriate to him. In a word, the 
psalmist represents the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to 
exhibit the true nature of the Messiah’s character. 

The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. - How 
could the sixdess Messiah be represented as suffering for his own iniquities. 
Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of others might be 
laid upon him; as the Scriptures plainly testify that they were, (1 Pet. 
iit. 24. Heb. ix. 28. Isa. li. 4, 5. 125) i. e. he might suffer on account 
of the sins of others, or in their stead ; but as to sins of his own, he had 
none to answer for. The whole strength of the objection, however, lies 
in the version of the word 3p (Ps. xl. 13,) which the objector trans- 
lates my iniquities, sins, transgressions. But who that is well acquainted 
with the Hebrew idiom, does not know, that w means, punishment, 
calamity, misfortune, as well as iniquity, &c.? David, when he was 
chased away from Jerusalem by his rebel son, calls his calamity his ry. 
Perhaps the Lord, says he, will look favourably ‘AYD, on my calamity, 
2 Sam. xvi. 12; for his stn it was not, in this case. Compare Psalm 
xxxi. 11. Isa. v. 18. A Concordance will supply other cases, parti- 
cularly cases where the meaning is penalty, punishment. Analogous to 
the case of ry, we have seen to be that of DNB and PWD ; see on 
ch. ix. 28, Excursus x1x. In Ps. xl. 13, then, W3\Y may, agreeably 
to the usus loquendi, be translated, calamities, distresses ; and that these 
came upon the Messiah Cnywn, ) will not be doubted. 

So, in 2 Cor. v. 21, dpapriay éxoince, i. e. God made Christ a sin 
offering, or, subjected him to calamity; and in Heb. ix. 26, &Sérnow 
drapriag means, a removing of the calamitous consequences of sin. 

The third objection may be very briefly answered. Nothing can be 
easier than to suppose the Messiah might, at any period of his public 
life, have anticipated severe trials, and have deprecated them; as we 


602 EXCURSUS XX. 


know full well, how strongly he deprecated his final sufferings when he 
was in the garden of Gethsemane. That he should formally and lite- 
rally use the identical words of the fortieth psalm, was not necessary ; 
but that he should have been in a condition, such as the language there 
describes, is all that is necessary to justify the application of the psalm 
to him. 

In regard to the last objection, which has respect to the emprecations 
contained in the latter part of Ps. xl., they may be, and probably are, 
viewed ina different light by different persons. Considered as simple 
maledictions, they would be unworthy of the psalmist, or of the Messiah. 
But as denunciations against the impenitent and persevering enemies of 
God and of David, or of Christ, they present themselves to the mind in 
a very different light. David did frequently utter denunciations against 
his enemies. So did Christ against his; e. g. against the Scribes and 
Pharisees, against Jerusalem, and against the Jewish nation. Yet who 
will say, that this was for want of tenderness in him, or of benevolent 
feelings towards those who were his enemies? No one can say this, who 
considers the whole of his character, as represented by the evangelists. 
If then he might, and did in fact, utter denunciations against his enemies 
and persecutors, he might be represented as doing this by the psalmist, 
without any error committed in so doing. . 

The objections, then, do not appear to be of a conclusive nature, 
which are made to the application of the fortieth psalm to the Messiah. 
Still, I freely acknowledge, that had not the New Testament referred to 
this psalm, as descriptive of the work of the Messiah, I should have been 
satisfied, in general, with the application of it to David himself, or even 
to the people of Israel collectively considered. Yet a minute consider- 
ation of ver. 7, 8, [6, 7,] certainly might serve to suggest some difficulty, 
in respect to such an application. Obedience is there represented as the 
substitute for sacrifices. So the writer of our epistle understood it, 
And it is said to be written in the sacred volume, that this would be the 
case respecting the individual whose obedience is there described. Is 
this anywhere written respecting the obedience of David? Is the obe- 
dience of the Jewish nation anywhere represented as a substitute for 
sacrifices? Rather, did not a part of their obedience consist in offering 
them ? 

After all, however, the whole passage might, perhaps, be construed as 
merely affirming, that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice, 
and that this is so declared in other Scriptures. Compare 1 Sam. xv. 2 


HEBREWS x. 5. 603 


Ps. 1. 9, seq.; Isa. 1. 11. seq. At least, this mode of interpretation 
must be admitted to be a posszble one. 

Let us grant, then, what cannot fairly be denied, that the fortieth 
psalm, according to general laws of interpretation, might be applied to 
David. [s it not equally plain, that there is nothing in it which may not, 
without doing any violence to the laws of language, be applied to David's 
Son, in a still higher and nobler sense? After what has been suggested, in 
respect to this application, I shall venture to consider the application 
itself as possible. 

Here then is represented a case of the following kind. A psalm com- 
posed by an inspired writer, is (in itself considered, i. e. the words or 
diction being simply regarded,) capable of an application to David, or to 
the Son of David, the Messiah. To whom shall it be applied by us? 
If there be nothing but simply the psalm itself to direct our interpre- 
tation, the answer must be, ‘‘ To David ;” for the natural application of 
the words of Scripture, (which in themselves are not necessarily predic- 
tions,) is to the persons in being when they were written. But if we 
have a good reason for making the application of them in a prophetic 
sense, to some future personage, then ought we to make such an appli- 
cation. Consequently, the question in respect to the application of the 
fortieth psalm depends on the fact, whether we have sufficient reason to 
construe it as prediction, i. e. as descriptive of a personage who was to 
appear at a future period, viz. of David’s Son. In itself it is capable of 
such an explanation. Paul has actually made such an application of it. 
The nature of the case shows, too, that the Hebrews of that time were 
accustomed so to explain it; for otherwise, the argument of the apostle 
would not have been admitted as of any force by his readers. Whence 
did the Hebrews derive such an interpretation? Or, (which is of higher 
moment,) how could the apostle appeal to Ps. xl. 7, 8, for proof of the 
efficacy of Christ’s obedience unto death, as well as of the inefficacy of 
ritual sacrifices? This appeal, then, under such circumstances as show 
that the stress of his argument lies upon the meaning he gives to the 
passage of Scripture which he quotes, settles the question how the 
fortieth psalm is to be interpreted, with all those who admit the authority 
of the writer of our epistle, either as a teacher of Christian doctrine, or 
an expositor of the word of God. At all events, it cannot be shown, 
that the fortieth psalm has no original relation to the Messiah. To show 
that it is capable of another interpretation, is effecting nothing. The 
second psalm, and all other psalms relating to Christ, borrow their 


604 HEBREWS x. 5. 


imagery—their costume, from the times when they were written, and the 
persons, manners, and customs then existing ; and of course, in a greater 
or less degree, appear at first view to relate only tothem. In describ- 
ing the future King of the Jews, the writers of ancient times would natu- 
rally borrow their imagery from the kings of that day. But to affirm, 
that because they did this, they had reference, and could have reference, 
only to the kings of their times, would be a position as little consistent 
with the principles of language and interpretation, as it is with the 
numerous declarations of the writers of the New Testament. 

It will be easily perceived, that in admitting the possibility of applying 
the 40th Psalm to David, I have admitted that verses 7 and 8 may be 
interpreted, as expressing merely the general principle, that obedience ts 
better than sacrifices. But if we suppose, with the writer of our epistle, 
that David, when he composed this psalm, meant to intimate, that this 
obedience was to be ‘“‘ obedience unto death, even the death of the 
cross,” then must it follow, of course, that the psalm is altogether inap- 
plicable to David; for neither his obedience nor death, nor that of any 
other person, (the Messiah excepted,) could supersede the ritual of the 
Mosaic law, and prepare the way for its abolition. Supposing, then, 
the apostle to have rightly interpreted the words of Ps. xl., (and who 
shall correct his exegesis?) the impropriety of applying the psalm to 
David is plain; and the propriety of referring it to the Messiah needs no 
farther vindication. 


FINIS 


J. BILLING, 
PRINTER AND STHREOTYPERB, 
WOKING, SURREY. 


PIDs 
me 
= 





idee “we 
My’ 


Bie i 
* eee 





i 


ae et 
Ps 
i 1) hae 





Date Due 







































































HH 





BS2775 .S932 185 
Commentary on va ste to the 


wi 


1 1012 00070 9 








